## Panel Report

of the



### Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule Implementing the Formaldehyde S tandards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI)

April 4, 20112 

### Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Regulatory History of the Rulema king Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) ...................................................................... 4
2.2 Description of the Rule and Scope ..................................................................................... 5
2.3 Related Federal Rules ......................................................................................................... 6 

### 3. OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION .............................. 6 3.1 Sell‐through Provisions ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Stockpiling ........................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Ultra Low‐emitting Formaldeh yde Resins (ULEF) and No‐added Formaldehyde‐based Resins (NAF)

.............................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Finished goods ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.5 Third‐party Testing and Certi fication (Quality Control and Compliance) ..................... 9 3.6 Auditing of and Reportin g for Third‐party Certifiers ...................................................... 9 3.7 Chain‐of‐custody and R ecordkeeping Requirements .................................................... 10 3.8 Labeling

.............................................................................................................................. 11 3.9 Laminated products .......................................................................................................... 11 3.10 Products and Components Containing De Minimis Amounts of C omposite Wood Products

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 12 3.11 Hardboard ....................................................................................................................... 12 

### 4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS ......................................... 13
5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REGULATI ON ...................................................................................................... 13
6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH ........................................... 15
7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES ....................................... 16 Table 2: List of Small Entity Representatives ......................................................................... 16 

### 8. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES .. 18 8.1 Summary of Oral Comments & Pre‐Panel Meeting Discussion, Ja nuary 6, 2011 ......... 19 8.2 Summary of Oral Comments & Pa nel Meeting Discussion, Februa ry 17, 2011 ........... 21 8.3 Summary of Written Comments Submitted by Potential Small En tity Representatives

............................................................................................................................... .................... 23 

### 9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................. 27 9.1. Number and Types of Entities Affected .......................................................................... 27 9.2. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirement s .............................. 27 9.3 Related Federal Rules ....................................................................................................... 28 9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives .................................................................................. 28 

### A PPENDIX 

### A: L IST OF 

### M ATERIALS 

### EPA SHARED WITH 

### S MALL 

### E NTITY 

### R EPRESENTATIVES



### .............................................................................................................................. . A-1
A PPENDIX 

### B: W RITTEN 

### C OMMENTS 

### S UBMITTED BY 

### S MALL 

### E NTITY 

### R EPRESENTATIVES 

### ................................................................................................B-13 

### Panel Report Small Business Advoc acy Review Panel Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehy de Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI)



## 1. INTRODUCTION

This report is presented to the Small Busi ness Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) that convened to review the pla nned proposed rulemaking to implement the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI). 1 Implementing regulations are currently being developed by the U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibil ity Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 2 a Panel is required to be convened prior to publication of th e initial regulatory flex ibility analysis (IRFA) th at an agency may be required to prepare under the RFA. In addition to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson, 3 the Panel will consist of the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution prevention, 4 the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget, 5 and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. 6

This report includes the following:

• Background information on the proposed rule being developed;

• Information on the types of small entities th at would be subject to the proposed rule;

• A description of efforts made to obt ain the advice and recommendations of representatives of those small entities; and

• A summary of the comments that have been re ceived to date from those representatives.

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small entity representatives and make findings on issues rela ted to elements of an IRFA under section 603 of
the RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are:

• A description of, and where feas ible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

• Projected reporting, record k eeping, and other compliance re quirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for prepar ation of the report or record;

1 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ199/pdf/PLAW-111publ199.pdf

2 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/statute/rfasbrefa_act.pdf

3 Available a t http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/staff.htm

4 Available at http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/ocspp.html

5 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_administrator

6 Available at http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/858/31774 • An identification, to the extent practicable, of all other rele vant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflic t with the proposed rule;

• Any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimi ze any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities; and

Once completed, the Panel report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and is included in the rulemaking record. The agen cy is to consider the Panel’s findings when completing the draft of the proposed rule. In light of the Panel report, and where appropriate, the agency is also to consider whet her changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or the
decision on whether an IRFA is required.

The Panel’s findings and discussion will be base d on the information available at the time the final Panel report is drafted. EPA will contin ue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the rule development process.

Any options identified by the Panel for reduc ing the rule’s regulatory impact on small entities may require further analysis and/or da ta collection to ensure that the options are practicable, enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Toxic Substances
Control Act and its amendments.



## 2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Regulatory History of the Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA
Title VI)

In March 2008, the Sierra Club and numer ous other organizations and individuals petitioned EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Subs tances Control Act (TSC A). The petitioners requested that EPA use TSCA Section 6 to adop t a newly-promulgated California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation 7 as a national standard for formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium -density fiberboard products. The petitioners expressed particular concern over the levels of form aldehyde found in emergency housing provided for Hurricane Katrina survivors, but noted that there are no fede ral regulations on formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products other than those applicable to HUD-regulated manufactured housing. In response to the petition, EPA announced in the Federal Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36504) 8 that EPA would initiate a proc eeding to investigate whether and what type of regulatory or other action might be appropriate to pr otect against risk s that may be posed by formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products. In December 2008, EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to publicly initiate the investigation and

7 Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm

8 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-27/pdf/E8-14618.pdf5 obtain stakeholder input (73 FR 73620). 9 In 2009 EPA held six public meetings on the ANPRM and issues related to formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products. EPA reviewed and
evaluated the comments received and continued to work on assessing the risks of exposure to formaldehyde emissions from these products.

Legislation was subsequently introduced in th e U.S. Senate late in 2009 and in the U.S. House of Representatives early in 2010. This legislation was designed to establish national emission standards corresponding to the CA RB limits for compressed wood products, i.e.

, hardwood plywood, particleboard, an d medium-density fiberboard. This legislation enjoyed broad support from environmental advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club as well as industry trade associations, such as the Composite Pa nel Association (CPA) and the Hardwood Plywood Veneer Association (HPVA). On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was signed into law. This legislation, which adds a Title VI to TSCA, establishes formaldehyde emission standards fo r hardwood plywood, partic leboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard that are identical to the Califor nia standards. EPA is directed to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2013 that address: sell-through dates for products; stockpiling; third-party testing a nd certification; auditing and repor ting of third-pa rty certifiers; recordkeeping; chain of custody; labeling; enforcement; products made with no-added formaldehyde (NAF) and ultra-low emitting form aldehyde (ULEF) resins; laminated products; finished goods; hardboard; and products contai ning de minimis amounts of composite wood products.



## 2.2 Description of the Rule and Scope

The national emission standards in TSCA Title VI for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products are the same as the sta ndards previously estab lished by the California Air Resources Board for products sold, offered for sale, supplied, used or manufactured for sale in California. The CARB regulation establis hed a comprehensive program for composite wood products which includes among other provisions, requirements for thir d-party testing and certification, labeling, chain-of-custody documen tation, and recordkeeping. Title VI does not give EPA the authority to raise or lower the emission standards for composite wood products, but EPA has been given discretion to adapt most of the other provisions of th e California regulations for national applicability.

EPA is required by statute to promulgate im plementing regulations for TSCA Title VI no later than January 1, 2013. The implementing regul ations must address th e following topics:

• sell-through provisions (including a prohibition on stockpiling)

• ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins

• no-added formaldehyde-based resins

• finished goods

• third-party testing and certification

• auditing of and reporting fo r third-party certifiers

• chain-of-custody requirements

9 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-12-03/pdf/E8-28585.pdf6 • recordkeeping

• labeling

• enforcement

• laminated products

• products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products

• hardboard

• other provisions in a manner that ensure s compliance with the emission standards

EPA is not given the authority by TSCA Title VI to make any modifications to the formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium-density
fiberboard. EPA is likewise not given the authority to modify th e statutory definitions of “noadded formaldehyde” and “ultra-low emitting formaldehyde.” However, EPA is given discretion in defining the term “hardboard,” in determining whether to exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product from the definition of “h ardwood plywood,” and in fashioning provisions relating to third-party certification, sell-through da tes, recordkeeping, enfo rcement, and the other items listed in TSCA Section 601(d)(2).



## 2.3 Related Federal Rules

There are no federal regulations on formal dehyde emissions from pressed wood products other than those applicable to the Department of Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD) regulations for manufactured housing. 10 These regulations are not as stringent as the CARB regulations. The emissions standards establis hed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act apply to regulated composite wood in manufactured housing. The Act also requires HUD to modify its regulations on manufact ured housing to ensure that they reflect the
emission standards established in TSCA Title VI. HUD must take final action w ithin 180 days of the date that EPA promulgates implem enting regulations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has incorporated HUD’s standards for formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products into its specifications for emergency housing, but FEMA has a large inventory of emergency housing that predates th ese new specifications. As directed by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will be conducting a study on the use of fo rmaldehyde in the manufacture of textiles and apparel. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in c onsultation with various Federal agencies including EPA, has develope d guidance on health and environmental best practices for manufactured housing a nd other manufactured structures.



## 3. OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

10 Particle board and plywood bo nded with a resin system or coated with a surface finish containing formaldehyde and used in regulated manufactured housing have the following emissions limits: .3 parts per million (ppm) for particleboard and .2 ppm for plywood

. 40 C.F.R. 3280.3087 Through Agency review and stakeholder i nput, a range of program options were identified and presented to the SERs. The fo llowing is a listing of regulatory options being considered and evaluated by EPA, and is not final at this time.



## 3.1 Sell

­ through Provisions

EPA will, through regulation, establish se ll-through provisions for composite wood products and finished goods containing regulate d composite wood products. Under TSCA Title VI, the sell-through provisions must be base d on a date of manufacture, unlike the CARB
Airborne Toxic Control Measur e’s (ATCM) sell-through provisions which were based on a designated date of sale. EPA is consideri ng designated composite wood product manufacturing dates (manufactured-by dates), in cluding, but not limited to, the following for manufacturers of hardwood plywood, particleboard, an d medium-density fiberboard and finished goods containing regulated wood products:

• 180 days after the promulgation of the implementing regulations

• Some period longer than180days after the promulgation of the implementing regulations

Manufacturers, importers, retaile rs, processors (fabricators of finished goods containing regulated composite wood products), and distribu tors of regulated composite wood products and finished goods containing regul ated composite wood products w ould be required to purchase, import, distribute and/or offer for sale only produ cts that are compliant with TSCA Title VI and its implementing regulations. Composite wood produc ts that can be shown to be manufactured before the date specified in the forthcoming regul ation would not be required to be tested or labeled. Importers, retailers, processors and di stributors would be permitted to continue to buy and sell these products because they would be c onsidered compliant with TSCA Title VI and its implementing regulations.



## 3.2 Stockpiling

TSCA Title VI requires EPA to promulgate regulations prohibiting stockpiling which is
defined as:

manufacturing or purchasing a composite wood product or finished good containing a regulated composite wood product between the date of enactment of the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Ac t and the date 180 days following the promulgation of the regulations pursuant to this subsection at a rate which is significantly greater (as determined by the Ad ministrator) than the rate at which such product or good was manufactured or purchased during a base period (as determined by the Administrator) ending before the date of enactment of the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act.

In order to define the base period used to determine whether an entity is stockpiling, EPA is considering options including, but not limite d to, the following:8 • Annual production volume; or purchases in the case of importers, distributors, and retailers, for 2007

• Average annual production volume; or purchases in the case of im porters, distributors, and retailers, for annual years 2005 through 2009

• Annual production volume; or purchases in the case of importers, distributors, and retailers, for 2009

• Defining the base period differen tly for manufacturers, fabric ators, importers, distributors

In order to define what rate of manufacture or purchase is “significantly greater” than the base period rate, EPA is cons idering options including, but no t limited to, the following:

• Define the rate of manufacture or purchasing to be identical to the rate of manufacture or purchasing during the base period

• Allow a 5 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing

• Allow a 10 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing

• Allow a 20 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing



## 3.3 Ultra Low

­ emitting Formaldehyde Resins (ULEF) and No

­ added Formaldehyde

­ based Resins (NAF)

EPA is considering providing incentives for th e use of NAF/ULEF resins to be consistent with the CARB ATCM, including:

• Less frequent primary testing a nd quality control testing for pa nels with ULEF resins (if the scheme ensures compliance with the emi ssion standards and complies with TSCA § 601 (a)(10)(C)(i)).

• Exempt ULEF and/or NAF composite wood panels from third-party certification requirements (if the scheme ensures compliance with the emission standards and complies with TSCA § 601(a)(10)(C )(ii)). Sub-opti ons include:

o Provide ability for manufacturers of NAF a nd ULEF panels to apply for an exemption from third-party certification (after initial 3-month quality cont rol testing period for NAF and 6 months for ULEF).

• Potential flexibility with provisions relate d to finished goods made with NAF and/or
ULEF.

• Special recognition via a “green seal” placed on products that fall well below the NAF emissions levels for "green-marketing" purposes.



## 3.4 Finished goods

EPA is considering not requiring finished goods testing as part of the rulemaking. However, we believe it is a valuable tool for enforcement of the regulation and we are carefully following work being conducted within CA RB and our own Office of Research and Development on testing finished goods to ensure chain of custody compliance.9 

## 3.5 Third

­ party Testing and Certification (Quality Control and Compliance)

TSCA Title VI specifies that:

A) Compliance with the emission standard s described in paragraph (2) shall be measured by— (i) quarterly tests shall be conducted pursuant to test method ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) or, subject to subparag raph (B), ASTM D-6007-02; and (ii) quality control tests shall be c onducted pursuant to ASTM D-6007-02, ASTM D5582, or such other test methods as may be established by the Administrator through rulemaking. (B) Test results obtained under subparagraph (A)(i) or (ii) by any test method other than ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) must include a showing of equivalence by means established by the Administrator through rulemaking. (C) Except where otherwise specified, th e Administrator sha ll establish through rulemaking the number and frequency of tests required to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards.

Although TSCA Title VI specifies some te sting requirements, EPA has discretion to determine the number and frequency of quality cont rol tests and the number of quarterly tests to require for different products. See section above on NAF and ULEF resins for requirements under TSCA Title VI and options that EPA is considering for composite wood products made with NAF and ULEF approved resins. For all other regulated composite wood products, EPA is considering adopting quality control and produc t certification requireme nts identical to the CARB requirements: Appendix 2 of the CARB AT CM describes quality control requirements for manufacturers of composite wood products, including preparation of a quality control manual, establishment of a quality control functi on at the manufacturing plant (including testing equipment and designated quality control pers onnel); routine quality control procedures conducted at the plant (including te sting frequency); participation in periodic inspections; and product testing by the third party certifier, and recordkeeping. Appendix 3 of the CARB ATCM specifies requirements for th ird party certifiers for their certification of composite wood products.



## 3.6 Auditing of and Reporting for Third

­ party Certifiers

EPA is considering harmonizing its program as much as possible with the current CARB ATCM program to avoid additional requireme nts for TPCs. EPA’s potential options may include, but are not limited to:

Option 1: EPA would adopt and modify as necessary the CARB ATCM. Under this option, EPA will review and approve the applicat ions of the TPCs. EPA will also perform regular audits to ensure that the TPCs contin ue to be in compliance with the Composite Wood
Standard. The TPCs’ laboratories would be cert ified by an accreditation body (AB) that is an International Laboratory Accred itation Cooperation (ILAC) and/or Internationa l Accreditation10 Forum (IAF) signatory. ILAC and IAF are two widely recognized intern ational organizations that assess and recognize the competency of ABs against an established set of internationally recognized accreditation st andards and whose members are accr editing body organizations that perform peer-to-peer reviews to ensure rigorous compliance of accreditation requirements, such
as ISO standards.

Under this option the Agency may also esta blish a quarterly TPC laboratory proficiency testing program that would be administered by EPA or may use an inter-laboratory testing approach similar to that curren tly used by CARB. Either of th ese approaches would serve as a mechanism to evaluate the laboratory’s comp etency and ability to use the ASTM E-1333-96 (2002), ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM D-5582 test me thods and generate high-quality results.

Depending on how closely EPA’s TPC program resembles CARB’s, EPA may provide a provision, with minimal additional paperwork, to recognize TPCs that have been approved by CARB through its program.

Option 2: Under this option, instead of EPA conducting th e application, recognition and auditing processes for TPCs, EPA would rely on ex isting ABs to perform these activities. To accomplish this, EPA would establish a memora ndum of understanding (MOU) with each AB that identifies the requirements for being an AB and the criteria against wh ich they will evaluate TPCs for recognition as a product certifying orga nization. The ABs would be required to be signatories of IAF or ILAC. Additionally, IAF and ILAC woul d incorporate into their AB signatory agreements EPA’s requi rements for certification of TPCs . Through their regular peerto-peer evaluation processes, IAF and ILAC wo uld ensure that AB signatories meet EPA’s requirements for being an AB. EP A would also require in the signa tory agreement the ability of EPA to audit ILAC, IAF, ABs, and TPCs if n ecessary. Results of each TPC application and audit review would be provided to EPA for fina l approval. As with Option 1, the Agency may also establish a quarterly TPC laboratory proficiency testing program or use an inter-laboratory testing approach similar to that currently used by CARB.

Option 3: This approach is similar to Op tion 2 but EPA would develop MOUs directly with IAF, ILAC, or similar international accredita tion standards organizations instead of with the ABs. The requirements, roles, and responsibilitie s of the ABs are the same as in Option 2. As with option 2, EPA would require in the signatory agreement the abil ity to audit the international standards organizations, ABs, and TPCs if necessary.



## 3.7 Chain

­ of

­ custody and Recordkeeping Requirements

CARB-like Option: by adopting requirements similar to CARB, EPA will not increase the burden on industry that has already conformed to the California regulations as a general practice by requiring two separate sets of r ecordkeeping requirements. Requirements may
include:

• Manufacturers, for each composite wood product, include a “statement of compliance” on the bill of lading or invoice with:

o the assigned number of the approved thir d-party certifier, if applicable; and11 o a statement that the composite wood products comply with the applicable emission standards, and, if applicable;

o whether the products were made using u ltra-low emitting formaldehyde resins or noadded formaldehyde based resins.

• Importers and distributers for each composite wood product or finished good made with composite wood products include a “statement of compliance” on the bill of lading or invoice that the composite wood products comply with the applicable emission standards.

• Manufacturers keep records at their produc tion facilities for two years including:

o product information, tracking number, purchaser information, transporter, third-party certification identity, records of non-comply ing lots or batches, and ULEF and NAF
related records.

• Importers , Distributors, Fabric ators and Retailers keep record s for two years that include:

o Date of purchase, supplier of the com posite wood products /finished goods and documentation of the precautions taken to ensure that the composite wood products and composite wood products contained w ithin finished goods comply with the
emissions standard.

EPA is also considering longer reco rd retention periods including:

• A three year record re tention period; and

• A five year record retention period.



## 3.8 Labeling

EPA is considering the following options for labeli ng provisions:

• Require same type of information that is required by the CARB ATCM (e.g., manufacturer name; product lot number or ba tch produced; a marking to denote that the product complies with the emission standards or was made using a pproved ULEF resins or NAF resins; number or name of approved third party certifier)

• Require labeling of each individual co mposite wood panel or finished good

• Only require labeling of boxes containing finished goods or bundles of panels

• Rather than require manufacturer’s name on label, allow use of a code for the
manufacturer’s name instead. That code woul d be maintained by the third-party certifier and the importer or fabricator.

• Coordinate federal labeling system with Ca lifornia’s so that there would be one harmonized labeling program



## 3.9 Laminated products

TSCA Title VI allows EPA, through rulemaking, to: 1) modify the definition of “laminated product;” and 2) use all available and relevant information to determine whether the definition of hardwood plywood (HWPW) should ex empt engineered veneer or any laminated product. TSCA Title VI provides the fo llowing definition of laminated product:12 Laminated product.--The term `lam inated product' means a product— (I) in which a wood veneer is a ffixed to-(aa) a particleboard platform; (bb) a medium-density fiberboard platform; or (cc) a veneer-core platform;
and (II) that is- (aa) a component part; (bb) used in the construction or assembly of a finished good; and (cc) produced by the manu facturer or fabricat or of the finished good in which the product is incorporated.

EPA is considering options related to lami nated products including, but not limited to, the following:

• Adopt the definition of laminated product provid ed in TSCA Title VI and not exempt any laminated products or engineered ve neer from the definition of HWPW

• Adopt definition of laminated product provided in TSCA Title VI and not exempt laminated products or engineered veneer fr om the definition of HWPW but allow for reduced testing requirements and/or no TPC requirements if laminated product is made only with NAF resins

• Exempt a limited subset of products and engi neered veneer (e.g., those made with a NAF or ULEF core and veneer affixed with NAF resins) from the definitions of laminated product and HWPW, if data support this option



## 3.10 Products and Components Containing De Minimis Amounts of Composite Wood Products

TSCA Title VI specifies that EPA include provisions in the implementing regulations related to exceptions from some of the requi rements in the regulat ions for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products; however, it also specifies that EPA cannot pr ovide exceptions to the formaldehyde emission standard requirements in subsection (b) of TSCA Title VI.

EPA is considering the following options:

• Establishing a de minimis exception to certa in regulatory requirements (e.g., labeling, recordkeeping, or TPC requirements) if the pr oduct or component meets specified criteria
such as:

o If product or component contains less than 1% composite wood by volume or weight

o If product or component contains less than 3% composite wood by volume or weight

o If product or component contains less than 5% composite wood by volume or weight

o If the composite wood product or component is less than a certain total weight or
volume



## 3.11 Hardboard

TSCA Title VI specifies that EPA establish a definition of hardboard and also specifies that hardboard is exempt from th e formaldehyde emission standards.13 EPA is considering the following options:

• Use same definition as the CARB ATCM (i .e., to meet the definition, the product must comply with a specific ANSI standard). Under the CARB ATCM the term “hardboard” means a composite panel composed of cellulosic fibers, made by dry or wet forming and hot pressing of a fiber mat w ith or without resins , that complies with one of the following ANSI standards: “Basic Hardboard” (ANSI A135.4-2004), “Prefinished Hardboard Paneling” ( ANSI A135.5-2004), or “Hardboard Siding” (ANSI A135.6-2006).

• Use one of the definitions from ANSI st andards and reference ANSI standards (i.e., does not necessarily need to comply with ANSI standards): e.g., the term ‘hardboard’ means a homogeneous panel manufactured pr imarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic (wood) fibers consolidated under heat a nd pressure with a density of 497 kg/m 3 (31 lb/cu.ft.) or more (as determined unde r the standards numbered ANSI A135.4-2004, ANSI A135.5-2004, and ANSI A135.6-2006).

• Use a recognized definition such as a defi nition above but require that hardboard not be made with urea-formaldehyde resin



## 4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defi nes small entities as including “small businesses,” “small governments,” and “small organizations” (5 USC 601). The regulatory revisions being considered by EPA for this rulemakings are expected to affect a variety of small businesses, but are unlikely to affect any small governments or small organizations. The RFA
references the definition of “small business” fo und in the Small Business Act, which authorizes
the Small Business Administration to further de fine “small business” by regulation. The SBA definitions of small business by size standards using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) can be found at 13 CFR 121.201.

The detailed listing of SBA definitions of small business for affected industries or sectors, by NAICS code, is included in Table 1 in Section 5, below.


## 5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED
REGULATION

The following table lists indus tries/sectors pote ntially affected by the regulation

Table 1: Industry Sectors, & Number of Small Entities Potentially Affected by EPA’s
Planned Action14 Number of Potentially Regulated Small Firms, by NAICS code

NAICS

code NAICS Description Number of Small Firms Potentially Regulated
Panel Manufacturers
321211 Hardwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 65
321219 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 11
Subtotal – Panel Manufacturers 76
Fabricators
321911 Wood window and door manufacturing 3,561
321918 Other millwork including flooring manufacturing 5,203
321991 Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing 794
321992 Prefabricated wood building manufacturing 1,923
321999 Other miscellaneous wood product manufacturing 4,812
336213 Motor home manufacturing 108
336214 Travel Trailer and Campers manufacturing 1,195
337110 Wood kitchen cabinets and countertop manufacturing 17,315
337121 Upholstered household furniture manufacturing 2,758
337122 Nonupholstered wood household furniture manufacturing 6,061
337124 Metal household furniture manufacturing 578
337127 Institutional furniture manufacturing 1,367
337129 Wood television, radio, and sewi ng machine cabinet manufacturing 480
337211 Wood office furniture manufacturing 800
337212 Custom architectural woodwork and millwork manufacturing 3,985
337214 Office furniture (non-wood) manufacturing 479
337215 Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing 2,408
339950 Sign manufacturing 25,881
Subtotal – Fabricators 79,708
Wholesalers
423210 Furniture merchant wholesalers 12,229
423220 Home furnishing merchant wholesalers 6,660
423310 Lumber, plywood, & wood pa nel merchant wholesalers 9,522
423320 Brick, stone, & const materi al merchant wholesalers 119
423330 Roofing, siding, & insul mat merchant wholesalers 851
423390 Other construction material merchant wholesalers 3,469
423440 Other commercial equipmen t merchant wholesalers 99
423450 Med, dental, & hosp equip & supp merchant wholesalers 66
423490 Other professional equip & supp merchant wholesalers 92
423510 Metal service centers & other metal merchant wholesalers 556
423610 Elec appar & equip & wiring supp merchant wholesalers 28
423620 Electric appliance, TV & radio merchant wholesalers 37
423710 Hardware merchant wholesalers 667
423720 Plumbing & heating equip & su pp merchant wholesalers 479
423730 Warm air heating & AC e quip merchant wholesalers 169
423740 Refrigeration equipment & supp merchant wholesalers 31
423830 Industrial machinery & equipment merchant wholesalers 75
423850 Service estab equipment & supp merchant wholesalers 742
423910 Sporting & rec goods & supplies merchant wholesalers 4,912
424610 Plastics materials & basic forms merchant wholesalers 77
424950 Paint, varnish, & supp merchant wholesalers 86
Subtotal – Wholesalers 40,966
Retailers
441210 Recreational vehicle dealers 6,998
442110 Furniture stores 35,900
442210 Floor covering stores 23,978
442291 Window treatment stores 587
442299 All other home furnishings stores 14,033
443111 Household appliance stores 2,438
443112 Radio, television, & other electronics stores 6,35215 Number of Potentially Regulated Small Firms, by NAICS code

NAICS

code NAICS Description Number of Small Firms Potentially Regulated
443120 Computer & software stores 83
444110 Home Centers 5,054
444120 Paint and wallpaper stores 649
444130 Hardware stores 14,660
444190 Other building material dealers 44,545
444210 Outdoor power equipment stores 652
444220 Nursery, garden center, & farm supply stores 8,386
445110 Supermarkets & other grocery (except convenience) stores 2,045
448110 Men's clothing stores 271
448120 Women's clothing stores 326
448130 Children's & infants' clothing stores 803
448140 Family clothing stores 5,933
448150 Clothing accessories stores 151
448190 Other clothing stores 2,158
448310 Jewelry stores 72
451110 Sporting goods stores 37,416
451120 Hobby, toy, & game stores 4,938
451130 Sewing, needlework, & piece goods stores 6,611
452111 Department stores (expt discount dept stores) 2,472
452112 Discount department stores 3,601
452910 Warehouse clubs & supercenters 3,065
452990 All other general merchandise stores 19,992
453110 Florists 1,256
453210 Office supplies & stationery stores 7,571
453220 Gift, novelty, & souvenir stores 4,896
453920 Art dealers 665
453930 Manufactured (mobile) home dealers 4,971
453998 All other miscellaneous store retailers (except tobacco stores) 11,098
454113 Mail-order houses 6,367
454390 Other direct selling establishments 94,057
Subtotal - Retailers 385,050
Total 505,800



## 6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH

EPA was actively engaged in talking to trade associations as well as individual entities that would potentially be affected by the upcom ing rulemaking well before beginning the formal SBREFA process. Since EPA began its regulat ory investigation into formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products with the ANPR published in 2008, EPA has met on numerous occasions with the composite wood panel and relate d industries. These meetings have been in the form of presentations at tr ade shows and industry association conferences, and meetings with the Composite Panel Association (CPA), th e Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association (HPVA), the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Association (KCMA), the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), the Business a nd Institutional Furniture Manufacturer’s Association (BIFMA), and individual companies.

EPA also conducted an online solicitation to identify other small businesses and trade associations interested in part icipating in the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel process by serving as Small Entity Re presentatives (SERs). EPA issued a press release inviting16 self-nominations by affected small entities to serve as SERs . The press release directed interested small entities to a web page where th ey could indicate their interest. EPA launched the website on October 19, 2010, and accepted self -nominations until November 2, 2010.

After identifying a list of potential SE Rs (shown in Section 7), EPA conducted a meeting/teleconference with poten tial SERs on January 6, 2011. To help them prepare for the meeting/teleconference, on December 23 rd , 2010, EPA sent materials to each of the potential SERs via email. A list of the materials shared with the potential SERs during the pre-panel outreach meeting is contained in Appendix A. For the January 6, 2011 Pre-Panel outreach meeting with the potential SERs, EPA also invi ted representatives from the Office of Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. A total of 17 potential SERs participated in the meeting. EPA presented an overview of the SBAR Panel process, an explanation of the planned rulemaking, and technical background

This outreach meeting was held to solicit f eedback from the potential SERs on their suggestions for the upcoming rulemaking. EPA as ked the potential SERs to provide written comments by January 20 th , 2011. Comments made during the January 6, 2011 outreach meeting and written comments submitted by the potential SE RS are summarized in section 8 of this
document.

After the SBAR Panel was convened, the Panel distributed additional information to the small entity representatives (SERs) on February 3rd and 4th, for their review and comment and in preparation for another outreach meeting. On February 17, 2011, the Panel met with the SERs
to hear their comments on the in formation distributed. The SERs were asked to provide written
feedback on ideas under considerat ion for the proposed rulemaking and responses to questions regarding their experi ence with the CARB fo rmaldehyde emissions standards. The Panel
received written comments from the SERs in res ponse to the discussions at this meeting and the
outreach materials. See Section 8 of the Pa nel Report for a complete discussion of SER

comments.



## 7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

There is no difference between the list of potentia l SERs identified prior to the SBAR Panel and the following list of SERs.

Table 2: List of Small Entity Representatives

Name Affiliation Contact information

Dick Titus Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing
Association 1899 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA

20191-5435 dtitus@kcma.org (703) 264-169017 Name Affiliation Contact information

Bill Perdue The American Home Furnishings Alliance bperdue@ahfa.us

336-884-5000 x1017

Tom Julia Composite Panel Association 19465 Deerfield Ave., Suite 306 Leesburg, VA tjulia@cpamail.org (703) 724-1128

Dennis Dean Carroll Rutland Plywood Corporation PO Box 6180 Rutland, VT dcarroll@rutply.com (802) 747-4000 x4334

Stanford Stone Navy Island, Inc. 275 Marie Ave. E. West St. Paul, MN 55129 stanstone@navyisland.com (651) 451-4454

Robert Gross Gross Veneer Sales 2040 Brevard Rd. High Point, NC 27263 robgross@grossveneer.com (336) 883-0196

Robert MacMaster Argo Import and Salvage Inc. 3045 Ridgelake Drive Metairie, LA 70002 argo@argofineimports.com (504) 828-0943

Todd Smith FormWood Industries, Inc. 1601 Production Dr. Jeffersonville, IN 47130
tasmith@formwood.com (812) 284-3676 x 226

Jason Krings Architectural Forest Products 2763 18th Street Two Rivers, WI 54241 jason@afpinc.net (920) 793-4404

John Maultsby Florida Plywoods, Inc PO Box 458 Greenville, FL 32331 johnandbunny@embarqmail.com (850) 948-221118 Name Affiliation Contact information

John Hans Custom Wood Products LLC PO Box 4500 Roanoke, VA 24015 jhans@cwpcabinets.com (540) 342-0363 x101

Victor Giaime Veneer One, Inc. 3415 Hampton Road Oceanside, NY 11572
vic@veneer1.com (516) 536-6480 x102

Doug Carmichael Drawer Box Specialties 1482 N. Batavia St Orange, CA 92867 dougc@dbsdrawers.com (714) 744-4247 x155

Fred Zoeller Laminate Technologies Inc 161 Maule Road Tiffin, OH 44883
fzoeller@lamtech.net (419) 448-0812 x116

Matt Wald Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association 1896 Preston White Dr. Reston, VA 20191 mwald@rvia.org (703) 620-6003, x. 313

Kip Howlett Hardwood Plywood and Veneer
Association 1825 Michael Faraday Drive,
Reston VA 20190 KHowlett@hpva.org (703) 435-2900

Brigid Shea International Wood Products
Association 4214 King St. Alexandria, VA 22302 brigid@iwpawood.org (703) 820-6696



## 8. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY
REPRESENTATIVES

Below is a summary of written and oral comm ents received from SERs in response to the pre-panel outreach meeting and the panel outr each meeting. The SERs stated that, where applicable, they were in compliance with CA RB’s ATCM. Accordingly, the SERs generally19 favored harmonizing the regulator y requirements with CARB as much as possible and making improvements for national appl icability where necessary.



## 8.1 Summary of Oral Comments & Pre

­ Panel Meeting Discussion, January 6, 2011

The following are summaries of issues raised and oral comments provided by the potential SERs during the January 6, 2011, pre-panel outreach meeting.

Sell Through Dates & Stockpiling Provisions

• One SER said that it is important for exis ting stock to be saleable; the SER lost a considerable amount of money when product he imported prior to CARB had to be sold

at a discount.

• SER also said that the sell-through provisions were meant to be based on the date of manufacture, not the date of sale. The SER noted that when the CARB ATCM was implemented, unfortunately, distributors were stuck with non-CARB compliant product.

• One SER noted that the se ll-through provisions should be based on the date of manufacture so that inventory would still be legal to sell even if the there was limited market demand for the noncompliant product.

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER commented that companies, like his, that use low emission products should not have to pay for testing to determine that, in fact, that is what they are using.

• One SER said that the resin used is the mo st significant factor and asked that small manufacturers receive some kind of testing relief if they use NAF or ULEF resins.

• One SER commented that there are incentives to use NAF and ULEF resins because of

market demand and so businesses can redu ce their testing and reporting requirement

burdens under CARB.

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

• One SER said that international mills also meet other international standards besides CARB and that should not be neglected. The SE R said that importers need to check their materials too, so there is enforcement built into the system. The SER recommended that EPA should avoid creating disincenti ves for compliance with the rule.

Third Party Certification

• One SER commented that the TPC system s hould be robust so that the burden for compliance is shifted to the top of the supply chain. That SER suggested that the TPC20 system validate the quality assurance testing processes, not the pr oduct. Marking/labeling requirements should be considered and EPA shou ld make sure the definitions are correct

and fair.

• One SER said the TPC system must be consis tent and he suggeste d round-robin testing. The SER recommended that the labs be gene rally accredited and also be accredited to do

the individual tests. The SER noted that consumers are demanding compliant products. The SER agreed that there is a well-organiz ed community of Internet bloggers, social networks, and organizations that are demanding compliant products.

• One SER suggested that a dec onstructive test would not be needed if there is a robust TPC and chain of custody system.

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• Another SER agreed that the TPC program is robust and said that EPA should take a hard look at the TPC structure in place to ensu re a level playing field. That SER also commented that the TPC system is worki ng internationally. The SER commented that some finished goods are made of many types of composite wood and EPA should streamline record keeping and labeling fo r these products. The SER noted receiving several emails from savvy consumers request ing CARB compliant products and asking to see labels and the chain of custody documentation.

• One SER suggested that ther e may be HUD labeling requirements in addition to the current CARB labeling requirements.

• One SER stated that shipping component part s and labeling them is an administrative

burden.

• One SER commented that International W ood Products Association (IWPA) members do not want to do separate labe ling or reporting for CARB and EPA. The SER said that the chain of custody requirements might be diffi cult and that emission levels were not problematic.

• One SER commented that the labeling require ments should be identical to CARB. The SER used the example of a sofa made of ma ny types of composite wood in a recreational

vehicle to reiterate anothe r SER’s suggestion that reco rd keeping and labeling be simplified for finished goods made of multip le types of composite wood panels. The SER questioned the amount of money that would n eed to be invested in record keeping.

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard

• One SER suggested that EPA review the Se nate report concerning the regulation of laminated products and possible impacts on small businesses.21 • One SER noted that reduction of the burde n might be achieved by encouraging use of NAF or ULEF resins. The SER suggested that if laminators are consistently using the same kinds of materials, EPA should test the process, not the products.

• One SER asked if laminators would be includ ed in the rule, and if they are included, whether EPA would test the pr ocess or individual products.

De Minimis Exemption

• One SER said the costs of the CARB AT CM are significant; approximately $40,000 for testing for certification. That SER also sa id many US and Canadian businesses have already made that investment. The SER commen ted that the CARB rule is not perfect, but they have learned from it, and it can be improved. The SER mentioned the areas of potential flexibility, including a de mini mis exception. The SER suggested that de minimis considerations might include glue lines on composite faces, edge banding, and

windows.

Other General Comments

• One SER commented that the definition of inte rior use (if one is necessary) should be in the true spirit of the act, for public health.

• One SER said that they need internationa l vendors and asked EPA not to increase their

burden.

• One SER said that an EPA rule regarding windows needed to be simplified because

CARB’s treatment of window s is overly complicated.



## 8.2 Summary of Oral Comments & Panel Meeting Discussion, February 17, 2011

The following are summaries of issues raised and oral comments provided by the potential SERs during the February 17, 2011, panel outreach meeting.

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER expressed concern about a potential “green seal” program for products with

emissions below the NAF limits. That SER pointed out the products with emissions

below the NAF limits would have emissions of basically zero. The SER also expressed concern that such a program may interfere w ith other voluntary programs. Another SER commented that any “green seal” program shoul d be based on a performance standard not

a content standard for a specific type of resin.

• One SER introduced the topic of “N o Added Urea Formaldehyde” (NAUF).

Quality Control and Compliance Testing22 • Several SERs rejected concerns that the established test me thods are not repeatable. They stated that the test methods are repeatable if correctly applied. One SER noted that some mills did not have qualified chemists or rooms and equipment clean enough to conduct the tests. One SER pointed out that the emi ssions levels are so low that they require measurement of a single or several molecules, which is difficult. Another SER concurred that the test methods were working well a nd that quality control by manufacturers was

the real issue.

• One SER commented that TPC testing and decertification of pr oduct is a problem. According to this SER, decertification can take a month and by that time the noncomplying panels may be in finished goods somewhere down the supply chain. Another

SER commented that this can be avoided if production is stopped in time, stating that TPCs should be able to provide their results near real-time. One SER commented that this is more difficult for foreign mills.

• One SER commented that they have tested pr oduct that they purchased and found it to be above the emissions levels. They are concerned about accidentally purchasing noncompliant product from abroad a nd having to eat the costs.

Third Party Certification

• One SER suggested that the Consumer Pr oducts Safety Commi ssion could be a good resource for information on product certificat ion systems. Another SER asked if the options presented for structuring a TPC system were cost neutral. The SER noted that if accrediting bodies become involved there may be additional costs to businesses which are then pushed back to consumers.

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• One SER was pro labeling for liability reasons, but would like the labels harmonized with

CARB.

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard

• One SER asked if there was a definition of “engineered veneer.” That SER was concerned about how “Compreg” (veneer impregnated with a phenol formaldehyde resin), would be classified under the regulati on. That SER also asked about the definition of “hardwood plywood” and “interior products.”

Other General Comments23 • One SER expressed concerned about the poten tially high costs of destructive testing.

This SER noted that destructive tests could be particularly costly for makers of certain high value items, such as recreational vehicles.

• One SER commented that importers were conc erned that their compliant products could become cross contaminated with formaldehyde from other sources downstream. That SER inquired where his responsibility ends wh en he delivers certified panels that are incorporated into a product downstream and that does not pass emissions standards.

• Several SERs commented on the “Potential Costs of FSCWPA [TSCA Title VI] to Small Entities” document provided by EPA. One SER commented that document

underestimates the number of laminators. Another SER suggested the estimate for veneer costs is low, especially w ith regards to small manufacturers.

• One SER commented that the term panel usually refers to a 4 foot by 8 foot panel.

Another SER commented that it can also refer to a “made to size” or “cut to size” panel.



## 8.3 Summary of Written Comments Submitted by Potential Small Entity Representatives

The following is a summary of the written comments submitted by the SERs. A copy of each of the comments submitted by the SERs is included in Appendix B.

Sell Through Dates & Stockpiling Provisions

• Multiple SERs commented in support of ha ving a manufacturing pass through date not a sell through date. This would allow panels made before the manufactured date to

continue to be sold.

• One SER suggested the manuf actured-by date should be 180 days after the promulgation of the regulations.

• One SER suggested that the reference period against which purported stockpiling should be measured be the 12-month period prior to promulgation of the regulations, with annualized rates compared.

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER commented that incentives for a lternative resins are better left to the marketplace, not regulation.

• One SER supported CARB’s reduced testing fr equency and exemption from third party certification for products usi ng NAF or ULEF resins and meeting certain emissions

standards.

• One SER commented that he is skeptical of a potential “green seal” program. That SER stated that it was not possible to measure emissions well below the NAF emissions levels24 because they are already so close to zero. Also, that SER was unsure how a “green seal” program would handle Federal Trade Co mmission disclosure requirements.

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

• One SER commented that EPA should exercise flexibility on dete rmining the size and duration of test lots. This SER pointed out that those small entities with lower production volumes have a greater percentage of their production tested. This SER also requested simplified procedures for recertif ication of non-complying lots.

• One SER commented that the test methods iden tified in TSCA Title VI are appropriate, time-proven, and accepted world-wide.

• One SER commented that the test methods used by CARB worked well and that

alternative methods should be viewed with skepticism.One SER commented that because the emission standards are so low, the occasional noncomplying lot was inevitable. That SER reque sted that EPA develop a practical solution to this issue, such as allowing a plant one failed test out of fifty.

Third Party Certification

• One SER commented that the tangible benefits to the manufacturer of the TPC program should be clearly identified. This SER suggest ed that certification should confer liability protection.

• One SER commented that TCPs would be acc redited by a nationally or internationally recognized accreditati on body in a somewhat more rigor ous manner than under CARB.

• One SER commented that it is important that the TPCs themselves are credibly approved, monitored, and audited, in order to be sure they are legitimate en tities fulfilling their regulatory responsibilities on a c onsistent and verifiable basis. That SER commented that both options EPA presented for structuring a TPC system are acceptable, and the SER was in favor of toughening CARB TPC requi rements to ensure universality of TPC performance. That SER would oppose permission being given to a more global accreditation body to exercise substantial superv ision of the actual certification process, or to have discretionary authority over the design or operation of the certification system, including the criteria by which TPCs are ap proved. The SER argued that these actions could potentially create new co sts and burdens for TPCs and their customers that may or may not be warranted to satisfy the objectives of the Statute. The SER commented that the sole function of a global accreditati on body should be limited to oversight and auditing, with regular reports submitted to EPA.

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• One SER suggested that once one a set of nati onal emissions standards is established, the chain of custody procedures wi ll no longer be necessary.25 • One SER commented that once there is one se t of national emissions standards labeling will no longer be necessary because consum ers will not have the option to purchase noncompliant material.

• One SER commented that stricter record keep ing procedures will be more difficult for the

limited resources of small manufacturers.

• One SER commented that he did not believe the record keeping and labeling system adopted by CARB presents any concern about the disclosure of c onfidential information regarding sourcing.

• One SER commented that CARB framewor k for labeling and record keeping requirements is an appropriate model for EPA. This SER commented that CARB’s framework does not require that each component piece of furniture to be specifically tied to a specific panel.

• One SER commented that a transparent chain of custody system must be in place to enable panels to be tracked from the retail level back to the mill producing them, and to

the TPC.

• One SER commented that labe ling should be consistent w ith the CARB regulations and that labeling via bundle of composite wood products was mo re practical and effective than labeling individual panels . That SER noted that pane ls cannot be labeled without impairing their appearance and functional ity. Several SERs commented that the implementing regulations should mirror the CA RB ATCM (e.g. in the areas of inventory tracking and labeling programs) in order to av oid two different stan dards in the industry.

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard

• Several SERs raised concerns about how laminators will be treated under the implementing regulations. Laminators are not regulated by the CARB ATCM, but laminated products are included in TSCA VI’s definition of “hardwood plywood,” and will be regulated unless EPA exempts them.

• One SER contended that laminators a dd only about 1/10 the resin a platform manufacturer adds (1.1 pounds per panel v. 9.6 pounds per panel) and are a minor, if not de minimis, usage of urea formaldehyde re sin. Furthermore, laminators using NAF adhesives would not add any emissions. Mult iple SERs noted that if laminators are regulated, they would be paying for their produ cts to be certified twice: the platform manufacturer would pay fo r certification and the laminator would again pay for certification. This would put them at a disadvantage to manufacturers who make the entire panel in-house an d therefore require on ly one certification.

• One SER indicated that the laminated products he produces are not intended to be used

for interior construction. This SER commen ted that niche laminated products, such as the ones he manufactures, should be excluded from th e definition of “hardwood plywood.”26 • One SER commented that verifiable complian ce with the emissions standards should be the driver for determining whether laminate d products are exempted from the definition of hardwood plywood.

• One SER commented that CARB narrowly defi ned “laminated products” as veneered hardwood plywood. That SER commented that if laminated products were regulated it could be costly and burdensome to thousands of small cabinet makers that veneer on a kitchen-by-kitchen basis. The SER sugge sted that many "laminators" laminated component parts, not panels. The SER noted that it was more practical time-wise and less costly for cabinetmakers to do their own veneering of exotic and unique veneers.

• One SER commented that a component of kitchen cabinets which consists of a raised panel door constructed with HW PW that varies in depth sh ould not be regulated as a "panel." That SER commented these component s don't meet the definition of a paneled product (HP-1) and are quite different from a HWPW panel. This SER commented that

the ANSI/HPVA HP-1 definition of HWPW refers to panels that are four feet by six feet; eight feet, etc.; and not smaller components.

• One SER commented that cabinet makers appl y finishes to the exterior of the HWPW components they use and that these finishes are regulated by EPA for hazardous air pollutant emissions. The SER commented that these finishes present an additional barrier for formaldehyde emissions.

• One SER commented that har dboard made with urea formaldehyde resin is nearly

identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF.

• One SER commented that a revised ANSI sta ndard for “hardboard” would be approved by the end of 2011, and that EPA should refere nce that standard in its definition of

“hardboard.”

• One SER commented that laminators not us ing urea formaldehyde should be exempted and other laminators should be exempt so l ong as a certified subs trate is used.

• One SER commented that only approximately 8.5 percent of KCMA members surveyed did their own veneering and of that number only about half used urea formaldehyde.

• One SER suggested that cabinetmakers produc ing less than 10 million square feet of veneered product should be exempted.

• One SER suggested that EPA exempt laminators from testing requirements if they certify that they use a compliant core and NAF re sin or otherwise incl ude a statement of compliance under penalty of perjury.

De Minimis Exemption

• One SER suggested that the de minimis ex emption be based on the percentage of a product’s volume that consists of regulate d composite wood products, the cubic measure of regulated wood products in the finished good, or both.

Other General Comments27 • One SER commented that particle board and plywood should be held to the same emission standard, along with domestic and import production.

• One SER commented that EPA's estimate th at HWPW costs $.45 a square foot is inaccurate and that $2.00 is a mo re accurate estimate.

• One SER commented that the Kitchen Cabi net Manufacturers Association's voluntary Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) re quires all composite wood products used to make ESP certified products be CARB co mpliant. The SER commented that this program is actively enforced and has no cost to taxpayers. That SER suggests that if cabinet makers are regulated, the display of the ESP certification should be sufficient proof of compliance with TSCA Title VI.

• One SER recommended EPA consider exempti ng engineered veneer and products not intended for interior use from third party cert ification and emissions level requirements. That SER recommends EPA develop practical definitions for "engineered veneer" and "interior use." In particul ar that SER requested a defi nition for "Compreg." The SER suggested as an alternative that "Compreg" be included in the defini tion of "engineered veneer." According to that SER "Compreg" is wood that is compressed and impregnated with phenol formaldehyde resins, and no other resins are currently available for this application.

• One SER commented that he could not find performance competitive and emissions level compliant resin for niche applications such as guitar bodies and gun stocks.

• One SER recommends exempting manufactur ed products made without cores or platforms per TSCA Title VI definitions.



## 9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

9.1. Number and Types of Entities Affected

EPA estimates that 505,800 entities may be affected, including panel manufactures, fabricators of goods containing composite wood products, and wholesaler s of goods containing composite wood products.



## 9.2. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

In addition to mandating emission standards for composite wood products, TSCA Title VI directs EPA to include in its regulations provi sions on labeling, chain of custody requirements, third-party testing and certif ication, and record keeping. (T SCA § 601(d)(2)). The SERs’ comments generally favored record keeping and la beling provisions that closely aligned with those required by CARB and th at assisted downstream purchasers of composite wood products in verifying that they were purchasing compliant material. SERs also agreed that a third party certification program would be an integral part of the regula tory scheme. Record keeping as it relates to third party certificati on and testing will ensure complia nce, a level playing field for28 domestic manufactures, and allow downstream purc hasers to verify that they are purchasing compliant material.



## 9.3 Related Federal Rules

There are no federal regulations on formal dehyde emissions from pressed wood products other than those of the Department of H ousing and Urban Development (HUD) that are applicable to particleboard and plyw ood used in manufactured housing.



## 9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

EPA is directed to promulgate implementing regulations for TSCA Title VI in a manner that ensures compliance with the emissions standards. In order to mitigate potential burdens, the
Panel recommends that EPA consider and seek comments on the flexibility options described below. The Panel believes that the following flex ibility options collectivel y have the potential to reduce the compliance burden and clarify issues of concern for small entities, while ensuring
emissions standards and the intent of TSCA Title VI are met.

The Panel first acknowledges that many of the SERs stated that they were in compliance with the CARB ATCM, and that they preferred that EPA adopt regulatory requirements that coincided with CARB’s requirements. The Pa nel recommends that EPA adopt regulatory requirements that are consistent with the CARB ATCM wherever possible.

Manufactured-by Dates and Stockpiling

One SER suggested the manuf actured-by date should be 180 days after the promulgation of the regulations. Another SER suggested that the reference period against which purported stockpiling should be measured be the 12-month pe riod prior to promulgation of the regulations, with annualized rates compared.

The Panel generally agrees with these comments and recommends that EPA propose these provisions while requesti ng comments and data on alternativ e dates and reference periods. The statute requires a date for compliance relative to the date of manufact ure, in part so that regulated entities would not be st uck with non-saleable inventory. By selecting a date relative to the date of manufacture, entities will have time to clear their existing inventory, while any new inventory being generated must be compliant.

NAF and ULEF Resins

EPA sought information on how the SERs would respond to a “green seal” labeling program for products with emissions below the NAF limits. The SERs generally did not support such a program at this time. They commented that it would be extremely difficult to measure
emissions that were well below the NAF limits , making it impossible for products to earn a “green seal.” They were also unsure how the program could be integrated with other green labeling programs.29 The Panel recommends that EPA not pursue a “green seal” program at this time, because
it could be difficult for manufacturers to take ad vantage of such a program. Because emissions
levels below the NAF limits are difficult to accura tely measure, it would be difficult to fairly implement a “green seal” program. The Panel en courages EPA to explore other options to encourage environmentally pr eferable alternatives.

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

Several SERs submitted comments on the test methods. They contend that the test methods used by CARB and required by TSCA Title VI are accurate when appropriately applied.

The Panel recognizes that alte rnative test methods must be specified by regulation and include a showing of equiva lence to ASTM E-1333-96(2002) by a method established through regulation. (TSCA § 601(b)(3)). Th e Panel recommends that that EPA consider CARB’s method of establishing equivalency and carefully ev aluate any alternative test method.

One SER commented that the lag time between when boards are tested and when failing test results are reported can lead to noncompliant lots being so ld to downstream purchasers that are unaware that they are noncompliant.

The Panel recommends that EPA provide clear direction to TPCs on product
decertification and recertif ication procedures and cl ear direction to producers regarding the recall of noncompliant products.

Third Party Certification

The SERs generally commented that the integr ity of the TPC program will be an essential component the regulatory scheme. One SER commented that EPA could mimic the CARB approach to certifications of TPCs or EPA could enter into an MOU with an international accrediting body to perform some of the functio ns now being managed by CARB. That SER
commented that if EPA were to enter into a MOU with an ac crediting body, the EPA should not delegate authority over the design and operation of the certi fication system.

The Panel recommends that EPA continue to explore how it can capitalize on the expertise of international accred iting bodies, while at the same time maintaining control over the design and implementation of its certification sy stem. The Panel believes that additional oversight by accrediting bodies has the potential to strengthen the integrity of the TPC program, particularly with regards to auditing and oversig ht of TPC operations. This would provide a benefit to downstream purchasers of compos ite wood goods, by enhancing confidence that the materials they purchase are co mpliant. Should the EPA choose to enter into a MOU with international accrediting bodies, th e Panel recommends that their role be clearly delineated and that EPA not relinquish its role in monitoring the certification system.

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping30 Several SERs commented that labeling and r ecord keeping provisions should be closely harmonized with CARB’s requirements. One SER also suggested that like CARB, the TSCA Title VI labeling requirements should a llow labeling panels by the bundle.

The Panel generally agrees with these comm ents. Subtle difference between the TSCA Title VI implementing regulations and the CARB ATCM may make identical labels impossible; however, the Panel recommends that EPA consider closely aligning the tw o labeling systems. Like the CARB labeling system, the TSCA Title VI system should be designed to allow downstream purchasers to verify that they ar e purchasing compliant composite wood products. To the extent feasible, the labels should c ontain the same information required by CARB and allow for labeling by bundle. Requiring the same labeling information as CARB will reduce the burden on small entities because many small entities are compliant with CA RB and familiar with the CARB labeling requirements.

The Panel believes that labeling by the bundle is sufficient to communicate the necessary
information. The Panel further believes th at allowing labeling by the bundle will reduce the likelihood that composite wood panel finishes will be damaged by labels and that it will reduce the burden on small entities by eliminating costs a nd delays that fabricators may incur to remove labels on individual panels.

Treatment of Laminated Pro ducts and Engineered Veneer

Several SERs commented requesting the EPA exempt certain laminated products and engineered veneer. SERs commen ted that using alternative resins could hinder performance in certain applications. Howeve r, one SER commented that ap proximately 50 percent of the surveyed KCMA members that did their own lami nating indicated that they were not using urea formaldehyde resin.

The Panel recognizes that EPA is required to regulate “in a manner that ensures compliance with the emissions standards.” (TSC A § 601(b)(1)). The Panel further recognizes that unlike the CARB ATCM, TSCA Title VI specifically includes laminated products and engineered veneer in the defini tion of HWPW, which is subject to emissions standards. (TSCA § 601(a)(3)(C)). EPA is directed to “use all available and re levant information from State authorities, industry, and other available sources of such information” to determine at the Administrator’s discretion whether laminated produc ts and engineered veneer should be exempt from the definition of HWPW. (TSCA § 601(a) (3)(C)). The Panel recommends that EPA continue to seek available information, and exempt those laminated products that can be exempted consistent with the direct ion given in TSCA § 601(b)(1).

The Panel recommends that EPA work with sm all businesses, especi ally those laminating on a made-to-order basis, to design a testing scheme that is practical for those businesses, and at the same time, is calculated to ensure compliance with the emissions standards. The Panel recommends that EPA consider basing the number and frequency of required quality control testing on production volume, thereby requiring fewe r tests for smaller producers. Basing the number and frequency of tests on production volu me should reduce the burden associated with testing costs for small entities with lower production volumes.31 Fabricators

One SER suggested that fabr icators should be regulated the same as they are under CARB. The Panel generally agrees that, wh ere possible, the makers of finished goods (fabricators) should be regulated in harmony w ith the CARB regulations. This recommendation includes harmonizing the labeling an d record keeping requirements for fabricators. The Panel notes that under section 93120( c)(12) of the CARB ATCM th e term “fabricator” includes “producers of laminated products.” As noted above, the Panel recommends that EPA continue to seek available information on laminated products, and exempt those laminated products that can be exempted consistent with the dire ction given in TSCA § 601(b)(1).

Hardboard

One SER commented that har dboard made with urea formaldehyde resin is nearly
identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF. Another SE R stated that a revised ANSI standard for “hardboard” would be approved by the end of 2011, and suggested that EPA
reference that standard in its definition of “hardboard.”

The Panel generally agrees with these comm ents. The Panel notes that “hardboard” is exempted by TSCA section 601(c)(1) from the em issions standards and recommends that EPA develop a definition of “hardboard” that takes the revised ANSI standard into account while ensuring that similar products are similarl y regulated under TSCA Title VI.

Definitions

One SER requested that EPA pr ovide a common sense definition of “interior use” as that term is used in the statutory definition of hardwood plywood.

The Panel recognizes that TSCA VI was not intended to apply to structural plywood (TSCA § 601(a)(3)(B)) or composite wood products made for outdoor use because, in part, these products must be made to withstand outdoor weathe r conditions. The Pane l also notes that the statutory definition of “hardwood pl ywood” includes that it be “intended for interior use.” TSCA 601(a)(3)(A)(i). The Panel recommends that EPA de velop a clear definition for “interior use” in
order to eliminate confusion in the regulated community. The de finition should be based on the
intent of the statute and consider how the hard wood plywood is likely to be used and stored once incorporated into a finished good.

One SER commented that the term “panel” s hould not include the ra ised center panels typically included in kitchen cabinets and smaller panels typically used as component parts. Another SER commented that the term “panel” ca n cover smaller panels that are made-to-size
and cut-to-size.

The Panel recommends that EPA reduce uncer tainty in the regulated community by including in its regulation a clear definition of “panel” that is base d on the intent of the statute, and considers trade usage and the limita tions of current test methods.32 Other

One SER commented that EPA's cost estima te of HWPW at $.45 a square foot grossly
underestimates the actual cost most cabinetmak ers pay for the veneered HWPW panels they purchase. That SER estimated two dollars a squa re foot is the more appropriate number. EPA disagrees that it should use a cost of two dollars a square foot in the calculations that the SER referenced. The SER appears to be confused, becau se EPA’s analysis is based on the cost of the veneer, while the SER’s comments discuss “venee red HWPW panels”. EPA estimated the cost per square foot of veneer using U.S. ITC trade data on the value and quantity of imported veneer. To verify this information, EPA contacted compan ies that sell veneer. They agreed that $0.45 per square foot represents a reas onable value for the cost of veneer, and may be an overestimate of the average cost. According to one company, birch and oak face veneer cost $0.15 per square foot, A grade cherry veneer is $0.35 per square foot (although not all f ace veneer is A grade), and back veneer might cost $0.10 per square foot . Imports can be more expensive, but they constitute at most 20% of the market. Another veneer company said that 90 percent of sliced face veneer costs less than $0.30 per square foot, and that rotary cut veneer is less expensive than
sliced veneer. There are wide variances in vene er costs, depending on the species, cut, and grade of the veneer. While some companies may primaril y use veneer that costs one or two dollars per square foot, EPA does not believe th at this represents a reasonable average across all companies. EPA believes that the methodology and data it us ed represent a reason able estimate of the average cost of veneer used by la minated product manufacturers.A-1 

## Appendix A: List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity Representatives

• Fact Sheet: What Small Entities Should Know About the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regul atory Enforcement Fairness Act 11

• Fact Sheet: What Potential Small Entity Representatives Should Know About the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process 12

• Power Point presentation: Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI)

• Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) 13

• Agenda, Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, January 6, 2011

• Panel Outreach Meeting Power Point presentation: Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI)

• Agenda, Panel Outreach Meeting, February 17, 2011

• Economic Analysis: Potential Cost s of FSCWPA to Small Entities

• Comparison Chart for the CARB ATCM and FSCWPA

11 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/sbrefaftsht2009.pdf

12 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/serftsht2009.pdf

13 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ199/pdf/PLAW-111publ199.pdf

## Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA) conducted a pre-panel outreach meeting with potential Small Entity Repr esentatives (SERs) on January 6, 2011. EPA hosted a panel outreach meeting with SERs on February 17, 2011. The Panel consists of EPA, the Small Business Administration’s O ffice of Advocacy (SBA), and the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Informa tion and Regulation Affairs (OMB). OMB and SBA attended both meetings.

After the January 6 th pre-panel meeting, potential SERs submitted eight se ts of written comments, which are provided in this a ppendix. The following people submitted the

comments:

• Stanford Stone, Navy Island, Inc.

• Fred Zoeller, Laminate Technologies, Inc.

• Dennis Carroll, Rutla nd Plywood Corporation

• John Maultsby, Florida Plywoods, Inc.

• C. Richard Titus, Kitchen Cabi net Manufacturers Association

• Rob Gross, Gross Veneer Sales

• Brigid Shea, Internationa l Wood Products Association

• Thomas Julia, Composite Panel Association

After the February 17 th panel meeting, the following SERs submitted four sets of written comments, which are provi ded in this appendix:

• Dennis Carroll, Rutla nd Plywood Corporation

• Thomas Julia, Composite Panel Association

• John Maultsby, Florida Plywoods, Inc.

• C. Richard Titus, Kitchen Ca binet Manufacturers Association

## B.1 Written Comments from Potential Small Entity Representatives following 01/06/2011 Outreach MeetingWritten Comments Dennis Carroll

to: Tracey Westfield 01/12/2011 11:11 AM Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Hello Tracey,

Attached are Rutland Plywood Corporation’s written comments and concerns. When do you think we will

receive feedback from the written comments?

Best,



## Dennis Dean Carroll

EHS Manager Rutland Plywood Corporation PO Box 6180 Rutland, VT 05702 Email: dcarroll@rutply.com Tel: (802) 747-4000 ext.4334 Cellular: (802) 779-1140 Fax: (802) 770-1921 www.rutply.com Page 1 of 1

1/31/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web0040

...1

January 10, 2011

Tracey Westfield Regulatory Management Division US Environmental Protection Agency
#6440BB Ariel Rios North 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Rutland Plywood Corporation – Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111-199

Dear Tracey Westfield,

R u tland Plywood Corporation (RPC) is writing to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to voice its concerns regarding the new Public Law 111-199.

RPC believes it has a genuine and legitimate concern, should our small niche market

c o mpany be forced to comply with Public Law 111-199. The adverse economic effects of the rules and regulations from this legislation will ultimately have a critical effect on our financial strength.

RP C manufactures northern hardwood veneers and laminates, which are not intended to be used for interior construction purposes. We do not manufacture any 4’ by 8’plywood. Successful applications have included but are not limited to the following: tool handles, levels, billiard cues, pallets, material handling applications, production boards, gun stocks, knife handles, musical instruments, picture frames, pens, and OSHA safety products. It should be noted that we supply our product to customers who then manufacture our product into their own. We also engineer products that are ecologically friendly. In two applications, our products have replaced wood that was once harvested from the rainforest. We have been able to use wood materials that are not endangered, but have been engineered by RPC to make them look similar and acceptable in appearance to a rainforest wood species. All of our resins used are well below OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit for formaldehyde.

In comparison to the large commodity plywood manufactures throughout the world, we are a company that is dwarfed in size by their sheer volume. However, RPC has been able to carve out a niche market that offers our customers an alternative to a traditional plywood construction sheet.2

O u r product overview consists of the following:

A. Engineered Hardwood Components (EHC) are the heart and soul of Rutland Plywood Corporation. Here, thick peel Northern hardwoods are bonded together using our proprietary “Stratabond” process. Originally, these laminates were used for reel stock applications. Over the years, their strength and stability has made them ideal for a variety of industrial and consumer applications. Engineered Hardwood Laminates are sold in Pieces, Blocks and Dowels. They can be custom engineered to allow for greater strength through a parallel laminate process.

B. ColorWood® is made up of colored laminated hardwood veneers that have been compressed into easy to work with sheets, blocks and dowels. ColorWood® is easy to machine, easily accepts finish and makes for beautiful, durable and unique finished products.

This wood laminate made of natural and brightly dyed northern hardwood veneers is used

t o create a wide range of attractive gifts and novelties, from rolling pins, candle holders and walking sticks, crafts, curios, bow risers, ornaments and unique writing instruments.

C. DymondWood® is sometimes referred to by the generic name of COMPREG. It is a
hi ghly engineered wood/plastic composite that has the physical and mechanical properties of high density hardwood, acrylic, polycarbonate plastics and brass. Here, brightly dyed northern hardwood veneers are combined with engineering grade resins, heat and pressure to create a product that has the best characteristics of each. DymondWood® is distinguished by its unique strength, durability, dimensional stability, and weather and moisture resistance as compared to regular wood.

These ply-laminates include, but are not limited to the following: archery stock, pistol grips, crafts, knitting needles, ornaments, pens, brushes, awards, frames, billiard tables, pool cues, and
musical instruments.

D. RiggerCore® Industrial Strength Outrigger and Crane pads are the result of 50 years of plywood manufacturing experience and manufactured exclusively by RPC. They are engineered to give users the strength, value, and environmentally responsible pad, which also meet the safety specifications of the exterior work demands of the crane construction industry. All RiggerCore® Outrigger and Crane pads are manufactured in Vermont, USA from local, responsibly harvested
wood.

E. PaverCore® Production Boards are manufactured using state of the art lamination process. This product is used in Concrete Paver Production and other concrete forming applications. A variety of coatings are available for these paver boards. The available dimensions and other technical data vary for each. Presently, PaverCore® products are being offered with a HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) or Phenolic Sheet Glue.F. BevCore® material Handling platfo

to strengthen pallet stacks by allowing increased load forces on base pallets. engineered specifically to meet the rigorous demands of the beverage industry.

G. PalletCore® Slave Pallets (a/ loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote
the safe tra nsport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

H. SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development, SportCore TM offers the impossible; rigidity, and flex at the same time.

I. Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top performance while offering flexibility in design. At the heart of Stratabond hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have come to recognize the Stratabond® name for quality, con technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material
in the world.

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this document, RP C believes that we are excluded from inclusion in Public Law 111

All eight of the above engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. RPC’s request for exclusion should be granted under Sec. 601. 15 U.S.C. 2697 F “...(a)(3)(A)(i) intended for interior use and (a)(3)(C)(i) Rulemaking. shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant information from State authorities, industry that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term ‘hardwood panel’ should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product.”

RPC thank s the EPA in advance respond to this letter in writing to : Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. Box 6180, Rutland, VT 05702

Sincerely,

Dennis D. Carroll

EHS Manager BevCore® material Handling platfo rms, Manufactured exclusively by RPC, are designed to strengthen pallet stacks by allowing increased load forces on base pallets. BevCore® is engineered specifically to meet the rigorous demands of the beverage industry.

PalletCore® Slave Pallets (a/ k/a Captive Pallets or Slave Boards) are designed for heavy loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote

nsport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development,

TM offers the impossible; rigidity, and flex at the same time.

Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top performance while offering flexibility in design. At the heart of Stratabond ® laminated hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have come to recognize the Stratabond® name for quality, con sistency and durability. Indeed, it is this technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this C believes that we are excluded from inclusion in Public Law 111 -199.

engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. should be granted under Sec. 601. 15 U.S.C. 2697 F ormaldehyde S “...(a)(3)(A)(i) intended for interior use and (a)(3)(C)(i) Rulemaking. —(I) In general.

— shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant information from State authorities, industry , and other available sources of such information, and analyzes that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term ‘hardwood panel’ should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product.”

s the EPA in advance

, for its time and careful review of the above information. Please

: Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. Box

3

rms, Manufactured exclusively by RPC, are designed BevCore® is

k/a Captive Pallets or Slave Boards) are designed for heavy loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote

nsport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development,

Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top
® laminated hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have sistency and durability. Indeed, it is this technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this

engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. ormaldehyde S tandards

— The administrator shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant , and other available sources of such information, and analyzes that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term

for its time and careful review of the above information. Please : Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. BoxRE: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Pa nel - Panel Outreach Meeti ng on 02/17 + a fuller schedule Rob Gross

to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 03:03 PM Cc: Lucinda Power Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Tracey,

I have attached my Pre

‐ Panel Outreach comments in a Microsoft Word file.

Thanks and regards,
Rob Gross

From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:37 PM
To: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov
Cc: Power.Lucinda@epamail.epa.gov Subject: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Ou treach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule

Hi Potential SERs,

I'm touching base on the next steps for the Formaldehyde SBAR Panel. Below are three dates to keep in mind, the most important of which is 02/17/2011 (#2).

01/20/2011 - Your optiona l written comments on the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting (held on 01/06/2011) are due.

02/17/2011 - Panel Outreach Meeting from 1 - 4 PM. Logistics and materials will be distributed two weeks prior to the meeting. For now, please reserve this time on your calendars and make your travel reservations if you intend to join the meeting in person. The meeting will be located in Washington, DC at EPA Headquarters (1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004 --- Sa me place as the last meeting). You are not required to travel for this meeting; a toll-free conference line will be provided. But if you were to choose to attend any meeting in person, this would be the appropriate meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit y our advice and recommendations on the regulatory, economic, technical, and legal information provided to you by the Panel. The Panel also seeks your input on the potential impacts of the proposed rule on the entity you are representing.

03/03/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Panel Outreach Meeting are due.

I'll be in touch with more info as we approach the date of the meeting. Page 1 of 2 EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outr each Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule

1/31/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3103

...Thanks, Tracey

_ __________________________________________________________________________________
Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Manage ment Division, US Environmental Protection Agency #6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A | Washington, DC 20460 P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564.0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov

N o virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database : 1435/3389 - Release Date: 01/18/11 Page 2 of 2 EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outr each Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule

1/31/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3103

...

## Gross Veneer Sales

OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE: 2040 BREVARD ROAD, HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 27263 PO Box 5212 High Point, N.C. 27262 Phone: (336) 883-0196 Fax: (336) 883-2912 E-Mail: robgross@grossveneer.com

Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011

To: EPA’s Formaldehyde SBAR Panel

Attn: Tracey Westfield

Page: 01 of 01

Ref.: Pre-Panel Outreach comments

I would like to repeat some of what I had to say in the meeting we had on January 6, 2011. The most important observation that I have to make is that my company and hundreds of other importers and distributors were severely fi nancially hurt by the CARB regulations when they kicked in on January 1, 2009. The Air Resources Board’s plan for sell-through periods were not borne out in the least by what actually happened in the marketplace. It demonstrated to me that government agencies understand very little about business and market forces, and that they should keep their nose out of it.

Under the CARB vision, importers like myself would have had 90 days to sell panels that were not CARB certified in the marketplace. What they did not antic ipate was that in the marketplace, my customers started demanding CA RB certified panels in August of 2008, over 4 months before the rule took effect. The econom y for housing-related products was tanking right about then, so demand was very so ft, and my customers did not w ant to buy anything in August that they might be stuck with in January.

In my case my loss was compounded by another related event and the way my market works. I import plywood cores called platforms. I sell those to U.S. plywood manufacturers who then glue face and back veneers on them and trim them back to a 4x8 piece of plywood. The benefit that they get from that is that in their hot -presses, they don’t have to get heat to the center of the plywood, since it is already glued tight. T hey just have to heat up the surface of the panel and cure the glue right under the thin face and back. It allows them a much higher production rate when they use platforms. In late June, 2008, I sold seventy-five cr ates of non-CARB platforms to one customer. That is about five flatbed truckloads, and it wa s a good order for me. In my business I keep the platforms at the port of entry until they are sold, and then I release them to the customer. It is up to the customer to send in trucks and have the goods hauled to his factory. Well, as I said, demand was softening at that time, and my customer kept putting off shipping the platforms to his factory. And he also did not pay me for those platforms. Then in late November, 2008, about a month before the CARB rule took effect, he canc elled the order and handed the platforms back to me. So the amount of non-compliant platforms in my inventory more than doubled.

After the CARB rule took effect, it was im possible to sell non-certified platforms without giving the buyer a large financial incentive to do so. So instead of making a modest profit of around 10% on each load, I was discounting the ma terial to a level about 20% below my costs. That alone has caused me to lose at least $75,000. On material that was entirely compliant with HUD standards.2 And that could just be the tip of the iceberg if the federal standards do not allow for me to sell non-compliant panels after the law takes effe ct. I still have a LOT of inventory of specialty plywood for the steel-ruled dieboard industry, whic h cuts up paper and cardboard. None of it is CARB certified or even emissions compliant to my knowledge. What am I supposed to do with that? Export it? Make birdhouses?

I thought the EPA responded correctly and adm irably when the Sierra Club and other similar organizations petitioned for the EPA to adopt the California formal dehyde standard as the national standard. The EPA responded that they could not move to effectively ban panels made with formaldehyde unless there was some actual proof that formaldehyde is detrimental to human health. That proof doesn’t exist. Yes, it is an irri tant, but there have been no studies of morticians, lab technicians, panel plant employees or chemic al workers, people whose lifetime exposure to formaldehyde would likely be higher than the gen eral population, to see if they have any health problems that the rest of us don’t. The only study that I am aware of concerning formaldehyde was performed on lab rats. They were exposed to levels of formaldehyde that a person would never endure. Rats are also “obligatory nasal breathers”, meaning that they cannot breathe through their mouths, only their noses. So the fa ct that some rats developed nasal tumors has very little bearing to its potential effect on people.

But the U.S. Congress is a pparently not held to t hat standard of proof. They can pass this law without any scientific evidence that panels ma de using formaldehyde are detrimental to public health. But in your rulemaking for that law, you should bend over backward to ensure that those of us in the plywood industry will be able to sell what we have invested in and to get that investment back.

Gross Veneer Sales is a small company, with under 10 employees. We have an affiliated company, United Finishers, Inc., that uses some of the plywood that we import to make finished wooden bedrails, and they employ another 20 to 25 people. There are lots of other companies in our industry that are the same size as Gross Veneer Sales. With the slow business we have had for the past two and a half years, all of us are holding on as well as we can and hoping for better times. This law could be the kiss of death to many of those companies, if it makes our inventory worthless. So my suggestion is that any panels produced or imported bef ore a certain date, say January 1, 2009, should be unregulated and should be allowed to be used in the normal business operations of the marketplace. Perhaps docu mentation should be prov ided by the sellers attesting that it is old stock, or a paper trail be established to keep new production from getting sold as old. But there should be some provision for us to be able to sell our products without losing our shirts.

Submitted by Rob Gross Vice President, Gross Veneer Sales, Inc.EPA Formaldehyde SBAR Panel SER Comments Tom Julia

to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 05:16 PM Sent by: "Jeannie Ervin" <JErvin@cpamail.org> Cc: Lucinda Power, david.rostker, Lynn Vendinello Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Tracey,

Please see the attached comments.

Best Regards,

Tom

Thomas A. Julia
President Composite Panel Association

19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306 Leesburg, VA 20176 USA

703.724.1128 ext. 243 ∙ Fax 703.724.1588 ∙ 703.405.5602 mobile

tjulia@cpamail.org ∙ http://www.pbmdf.com

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. Page 1 of 1

1/31/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web3640

...

# COMPOSITE PANEL ASSOCIATION

Advancing the wood

- based panel and decorative surfacing industries

19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, Leesburg, Virginia 20176

Tel 703.724.1128 • 866.4COMPOSITES • Fax 703.724.1588

CANADA

Post Office Box 747

, Station “B” , Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5P8 • Tel 613.232.6782 • Fax 703.724.1588

INTERNATIONAL TESTING AND CERTIFICATION CENTER 73 Lawson Road, Suite 101, Leesburg, V irginia 20175 • Tel 703.724.1128 • Fax 703.724.1588 www.pbmdf.com Small Business Advocacy Review Panel For EPA Rulemaking on Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products

Comments of Thomas A. Julia President, Composite Panel Association January 20, 2011

The following comments are submitted by Small Entity Representative T homas A. Julia, President of the Composite Panel Association, Leesburg, VA, in response to questions raised by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its imminent rulemaking to implement the provisions of the Formaldehyde in Composite Woo d Products Act (the "Act" or "Statut e") that was signed by
President Obama last summer.

As a general premise, CPA supports the coordination of the federal rules with the current California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") Airborne Toxic Control Measure to the greatest extent possible. Although there are some purposeful differences between the Act and the CARB regulation, we submit that the req uirements should be congruent wherever possible. Otherwise, duplicative and potentially conflicting burdens and indeed questions of constitutionality could arise. None of these would serve the public interest or the interests of American small business.

I

. Chain of Custody Generally

Chain of custody is a critical aspect of compliance and together with labeling and record keeping comprise s a triad of assurance to downstream users and customers. In short, t her e must be some form of readily available assurance that finished goods are made with compliant panels.

CPA do es not believe that there should be a concern a bout disclosure of confidential information regarding sourcing. Under Sections 93120.7(d)(2) (fabricators) and 93120.5(d) (distributors) of the CARB rule, a party in the chain of distribution need only inform its customer on the bill of lading that the p roduct is made with compliant panels. It does not need to identify the supplier to others in the channel. This information would be subject to inspection by the regulator, but would not be transparent to other commercial parties.

The chain of custody r equirement is tied inextricably to the labeling and recordkeeping issues described below. In each case, we believe that there must be a balance between effective enforcement protocols and a minimization on the burden imposed on fabricators and distributors . The CARB rule provides a good template for these responsibilities.

II

. Labeling and Record Keeping Requirements

Effective documentation is needed to show that finished goods are made solely from compliant composite wood panels , and CPA believe s th at the existing CARB framework is reasonable andappropriate and should be followed by the EPA in its rule

- making. The pertinent language is found in Section 93120.7(c):

“ In addition, fabricators must keep records showing the date of purchase and the supplier of the composite wood products and finished goods and document the precautions taken to ensure that the finished goods comply with applicable emission standards. These records must be kept in electronic or hard copy form for a minimum of two years and provided to ARB or local air district personnel upon
request... ”

Some have suggested that this requires that each com ponent piece of furniture must be specifically tied to a specific panel, from a specific bundle shipped on a specific day from a specific supplier. We instead envision a system in which the fabricator could clearly show its chain of custody and fulfill its record

keeping obligations by more general indices

, including purchase information, inventory and usage policies, etc.

, to show that co mplying material from one or more supplier s was used.

III. Sell

- Through Provisions

CPA supports the concept embodied in the federal legislation of sell

- through with reference to date of manufacture rather than date of sale, which is used by CARB. In California there have been a series of "delays" in enforcement because distributors and retailers found themselves during these slow economic times holding inventory of panels or finished goods that had been made prior to the effective
date of the emi ssion limitations. These parties had bought what were complying products on the date of purchase, but found themselves holding non

- complying products with the passage of time. This could
cause severe financial loss.

The date of manufacture approach g ives certainty to those at all levels of the distribution chain as to what inventory can be sold. There is a date certain by which panels must be compliant and a date certain for manufacture of goods with compliant panels.

The statute provides that the s ell

- through reference date should be no less than 180 days after the promulgation of the EPA regulations (Section (d)(3)(A)(i)). At this time, we believe that the 180 day date is an appropriate one to be included in the regulation. As noted above, there would be no financial dislocation from such a date, because there is no problem with stale inventory under the date of manufacture approach (as distinguished from the CARB approach) . The effective date is likely to be sometime in early to mid

- 2013. By t hat time t here should be no problem obtaining compl iant panel s either domestically or from foreign sources, regardless of the application

. Moreover, all t he CARB Phase

2 manufacturing deadlines for panels will have been in effect for some time by mid

- 2013 : hardwood plywood composite core – July 1, 2009 ; h ardwood plywood veneer core – January 1, 2010; particleboard
and MDF – January 1, 2011; and thin MDF – January 1, 201 2 . The domestic market is already adjusting
to these levels , and another two and one

- ha lf years will only make the supply of complaint panels more universal

.IV. Stockpiling

EPA has requested guidance as to the appropriate "reference period for determining whether products are being stockpiled." There are two periods contemplated by the statute. The first is the period of purchases which is defined as between the enactment of Act and 180 days after the promulgation – almost a four year period. Given the cost of carrying inventory there is a natural brake on accumulating non

- complying i nventories long before the effective date of the regulation. We suggest that EPA focus on "stockpiling" within the 180

- day period between promulgation and the effective date of regulations.

The second period is the base against which the purported stockpiling must be measured. We suggest that the previous 12

- month period would be appropriate, with annualized rates compared.

There is precedent in EPA regulations for this approach, including the Non

- Road Diesel Engine
rul e.

The CPSC also has authori ty under 15U.S.C. §2058(g)(2) to prevent stockpiling. One approach used in the Safety Standard for Multi

- Purpose Lighters, 16 CFR §1210.20, is "...the base period means at the option of the manufacturer or importer, any 1

- year period during the 5

- year pri or period."

V. Other Resins

CPA members use a variety of no

- added formaldehyde ("NAF") and ultra

- low emitting formaldehyde ("ULEF") resins in addition to traditional urea

- formaldehyde (UF) based and other resin
systems . We believe that the reduction of testing frequency and exemption from third party certification for products performing at certain emission limits, as memorialized by CARB, is entirely appropriate. Market incentives are also constructive factor here , incentivizing new technological
de velopments. We are not aware of other incentives that are necessary in this area at this time

.

VI

. Finished Goods

EPA has inquired whether panel members "... have any concerns about the inclusion of finished goods?" We are not clear about the reason for this question since th e statute requires the inclusion of finished goods. Section (b)(4) provides:

“ (4) APPLICABILITY – the formaldehyde emission standard referred to in paragraph (1) shall apply regardless of whether an applicable hardwood plywood, med ium

- density f iberboard, or particleboard is

(A) in the form of an unfinished panel; or (B) incorporated into a finished good .”

(emphasis added). This is a n important feature of the CARB rule and the Act. Most panel production is incorporated int o furniture, fixtures, cabinets and other finished goods. If non

- complying panels could be incorporated with impunity into other items, then a purpose of the Act would be lost.Notwithstanding this point, we believe EPA should embrace a fair and reasona ble approach that
does not create new burdens on fabricators and distributors to police the actions of panel
manufacturers.

V II

. De Minimis Exemption

EPA has asked, "Do you think there should be a de minimus exemption?" It is our understanding
that the statute requires such an exemption, the scope of which should be determined by the Agency. Section (d)(2)(L) provides:

“ (2) INCLUSIONS – The regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) shall

** include provisions relating to –

(L) exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to this subsection for products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products. ”

The de minimis exemption was added to the federal legislation late in its consideration, lar gely at the behest of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which expressed a concern about the burden
involved with items such as small picture frames made with MDF and Easter baskets made with particleboard bases. The S tatute does not exempt these fi nished goods from the emission limitations, but does provide for the development of regulations that would excuse compliance with the ancillary duties found in Subsection (d), such as labeling and record

- keeping.

We believe this is appropriate and that t here are two approaches (or a combination of the two)
that EPA should consider . The first is a percentage limitation – i.e., any finished product with less than a specified per cent of its volume consisting of particleboard, MDF and/or hardwood plywood wou ld be exempt. This is similar to the approach in Section (c)(11)(&(12) of the statute dealing with windows (5%) and certain doors (3%).

The other approach would be to define de minimis in terms of a cubic measure of the regulated products in the finished good. The regulation might exempt any finished good that had less than a specified cubic measure of the regulated products, thus addressing the Easter basket and picture frame examples above.

At this time CPA does not have recommendations as to the ap propriate percentages or cubic measure that would be appropriate, but we anticipate offering a recommendation at a later date.

EPA also questioned whether products under the de minimis provision should be exempt from testing. The de minimis provision wo uld apply to finished goods containing small amounts of regulated panels. The CARB regulation has no requirement for finished goods testing, similar to the qualification and quality control tests required for composite wood panels. Finished goods must us e compliant panels, but this requirement does not need a specification of the enforcement mechanism.VIII. Test Methods

CPA, through our CARB

- approved Third Party Certification Program, internationally recognized Grademark Certification Program, as well as our International Testing and Certification Center, has worked on many round

- robin formaldehyde testing protocols and has expertise in this area. We believe that the tests identified in the Statute are the appropriate and time

- proven ones for formaldeh yde regulation, and they have been embraced world

- wide for purposes of compliance with the CARB rule.

IX. TPC Requirements

The Third Party Certification ("TPC") aspect of the CARB rule is critical to its credibility. No rule can rely on a domestic or foreign manufacturer to simply self

- certify compliance with the complexities of the formaldehyde emission requirements, whether established by CARB or EPA. The use of third parties, internationally accredited and demonstrably experienced in certificati on oversight, adds a critical dimension of surety to consumers, fabricators and regulators that composite panels do in fact meet the emissions requirements of the regulation.

One additional step is needed to complete the circuit. We submit that all TPC' s should be accredited by nationally and internationally recognized accreditation bodies in a somewhat more rigorous manner than now provided for by CARB. This will ensure that TPC's are qualified for this responsibility and that the TPC's aegis is not being pirated in any way. CPA will be prepared to offer specific recommendations in this area.

X

. Laminated Products

A definition of so called “laminated products” has been one of the most difficult issues faced by impacted industries. On the one hand, the hardwood plywood manufacturer trade association ha s suggested that materials that have traditionally been considered hardwood plywood should be subject to the same regulations as the products manufactured by their customers. On the other hand, furnitur e and cabinet manufacturers have urged that component parts made in their factories should not be subject to new regulations. Consensus could not be reached among industry stakeholders prior to introduction of federal legislation, nor by the time it passed. The interested parties are still in discussion at this time to try to develop a consensus recommendation. Although these types of wood veneered, laminated products are not directly within the product jurisdiction of CPA, we encourage the parties to

re concile their positions. We also take the view that verifiable compliance with the underlying panel emission limitation should be the driver for EPA, and that the agency should not be imposing new regulatory burdens on affected downstream businesses as lon g as such compliance can be assured.

XI. Hardboard Definition

The statute exempts hardboard from coverage of both the emission limitations and other ancillary duties, but leaves the definition of the product to EPA. As with laminated products, above, this reflects an inability of industry stakeholders to come up with a consensus definition during the legislative process. CPA represents most of the hardboard manufacturers in North America , and has adirect interest in seeking a reasonable and practical definition. We are actively working with the stakeholders to develop a definition at this time and are hopeful of making a specific recommendation

to EPA soon.

The central difficulty with this issue is the possibility of confusion between thin medium density fiberboard ("MDF") and "dry process hardboard." These two products can have similar appearances, properties and end uses. Thin MDF is typically made with UF resins (although it can use other binding systems such as MDI or phenol formaldehyde res ins). All agree that thin MDF is subject to the emission
limitations of the federal statute and the CARB rule.

Hardboard is made in two principal ways – a wet process in which a ligno

- cellulosic bond is used, often supplemented by some amount of PF re sin and a dry process which is similar to making MDF. All agree that "hardboard" made with UF resin is nearly identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF. CPA is in the process of completing a scheduled revision of the American National Standards

I nstitute's ("ANSI") Standard for Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4, and is attempting to develop a consensus definition within the ANSI procedures that would be useful for EPA’s regulatory purposes as well. CPA will communicate the results of this process too.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate on the Panel to offer these comments.SER comment Florida Plywoods, Inc.

to: Tracey Westfield 01/18/2011 02:49 PM Show Details

Ms. Westfield - attached please find our comments.

John Maultsby, Jr. President Florida Plywoods, Inc. 850.948.2211 ph Page 1 of 1

1/19/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7045

...Thoughts on EPA Meeting held 1-6-2011:

CPA presented itself as representing a wide c onstituency. I’ve been a Director for CPA since 1985. Real decisions are made by the Executive Committee comprised of a small number of large dues payers (dues based on production). Our company has been an associate member of the KCMA since the 1960s . Although they tout a representation of a wide membership, they too tend to represent large dues payers.

Our company makes particleboard for our own use to be covered with wood veneer, vinyl or paper. It is shipped out as cut-to-si ze components for kitchen cabinets and furniture. Our volume on a weekly basis is probably rough ly equal to the one shift production of the large particleboard manufacturers. As a resu lt, we must keep overhead and management costs low. Management and quality control duties are shared among all staff members. In short, in a small company everybody has to wear more than one hat. We support the CARB limits. However, the TPCs can alter th eir requirements for testing, in particular
the size and duration of test lo ts and the procedures for rece rtification of non-complying lots. These things take up a lot of manage ment time which could be spent in growing the business and developing new products. For in stance, our product is tested each day representing a much higher percentage of tests to production than the large manufacturers. In my opinion all programs, due to the extremely low CARB limits, will eventually have rare random non-complying lots. Due to the time involved in the TPC testing for compliance there can be a large vol ume of non-complying ma terial in the field
before the realization a lot ha s failed. In determining comp liance, the total QC program of each plant as well as prior TPC tests need to be considered. Further, I fear that the audit program of the EPA for the TPCs will resu lt in stricter procedures, record keeping,
etc. which will be more difficult for the limited resources of the small manufacturers.

I personally have been invol ved with the use of urea formaldehyde resins for over 60 years. When I first entered the industry UF resin was a st rong irritant. That has been totally eliminated to my knowledge. During my experience with UF I know of no proven illness linked to UF resin. In short, a rare random non-complying lot from a QC program with a good history of complian ce needs to be given consid eration. To be blunt, nobody is going to die if a rare lot is shippe d with emissions just over the CARB limit.

Thank you for your consideration.

John Maultsby, Jr.
President Florida Plywoods, Inc.
850.948.2211IWPA Input Brigid Shea to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 04:32 PM

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, January 6, 2011. We offer these comments on behalf of the International Wood Products Association (IWPA).

IWPA is the only organization that represents U.S. businesses that import composite wood products from overseas. Our voting membership is overwhelming composed of U.S. family owned small businesses. The IWPA is an advocacy organization; it does not own or hold a profit center for product testing.

Another important distinction to note is that the products our members import into the United States are unique. Typically they are panels that have no competitive product in the United States (because of thickness of panel, species used in panel construction, etc.). These market niches include but are not limited to the RV industry, kitchen cabinets and manufactured housing.

As an organization representing small businesses, our primary concern is containing compliance costs. Our members have already incurred expenses due to the California formaldehyde regulation and we seek to ensure that those expenses are not duplicated or unnecessarily increased by a federal standard. Our general advisories are:

Double Jeopardy by jurisdiction. IWPA petitioned Congress to include federal pre-emption in its legislation. That did not occur and remains our concern that California may amend its regulation to where small businesses would have to comply with two distinct monitoring, chain of custody, certification and labeling programs. This scenario would cause undue hardship on small companies that have already gone to great expense to establish new inventory, tracking and labeling programs.

Specifically, we ask EPA to:

Maintain the definition of Manufacturer and Fabricator as defined by CARB.

Adopt the same tag and labeling requirements as defined by CARB

Learn from the CARB experience and set sell-through dates as far from the date of manufacture of the finished item as possible.

Seek additional small business input. We applaud the SBA Office of Advocacy for its work on behalf of small businesses. However, we are skeptical that sufficient notification has been done for the small "mom and pop" businesses that will be most affected by this regulation. Most of these type companies do not read the Federal Register, nor do they belong to trade associations that have so far engaged in this process.

Third-Party Certification. If EPA is considering establishing a program where the manufacturer must be certified then the tangible benefits of such a program must clearly be identified. The concern our members have expressed to our association is that while they pay more for a "certified" product but this certification confers no liability protection. Certification without liability protection is the equivalent of paying insurance premiums without receiving protection or compensation in the eventof an accident.

Focus on consumer safety. IWPA's members are committed to product safety. That is where the EPA should focus. We are concerned that elements of the CARB regulation dealing with chain of custody, inventory and labeling are more focused toward enabling litigation rather than improving product safety. Incentives are best delivered by the marketplace. Tax dollars should not be used to determine "winners and losers." Let the marketplace offer incentives for alternative resin use.

Laminated products should be exempt. Laminators that are using certified panel products are performing a de minimus action when laminating a wood veneer to the product. Requiring testing of laminated products is redundant and would place small U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to larger business that can absorb the cost more readily.Re: please RSVP for Thursday 's meeting if you haven 't already + a revised list of potential SERs is attached Stan Stone to: Tracey Westfield 01/07/2011 04:59 PM
History: This message has been replied to.

1 attachment

EPA Discussion 110107.docx

Tracy, thanks for pulling the phone conversation together. While I didn't comment I did listen and I do have some suggestions.
Stan Stone

On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Westfield

. Tracey @ epamail

. epa

. gov wrote:

To potential Small Entity Representatives:

Two things:

1) This is a friendly reminder: Please RSVP (if you haven't already) and tell me whether you are calling in to or attending in person Thursday's (01/06/2011) Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting for the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. (Detailed information about the meeting is provided in the two email message below this one.) So far, I've received RSVPs from Dennis Dean Carroll, Robert Gross, Jason Krings, Stan Stone, Dick Titus, Matt Wald, and Fred Zoeller.

2) Attached is a revised list of potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs). Three additions have been made: Kip Howlett, Brigid Shea, and
Matt Wald.

Thanks, Tracey

(See attached file: Potential SERs - Formaldehyde SBAR Panel -01-04-11.xlsx)

________________________________________________________________________

___________
Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency #6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW , Mailcode:1806A | Washington, DC 20460Date: 1/7/2011 To: Tracy Westfield, EPA
From: Stanford Stone Subject: SBAR Panel Meeting

As mentioned in the meeting, the CARB requirement for manufacturers has become the defacto national standard. It’s my understanding that you cannot even purchase non-compliant co re material currently.

The issue that remains with the EPA is the same i ssue that CARB was dealing with, the treatment of laminators or fabricators. Some laminators/fabricators ha ve gone to the effort of having a TPC certify their facilities, others consider themselves, under CARB’s some times confusing rules, to be fabricators and have not certified their facilities, yet they do comply with th e emission standards, COC and labeling requirements.

Hardwood plywood manufacturers who make a complete panel in-house are required to have a TPC certify their processes on an on going basis. Manufacturers and fa bricators that are TPC certified have made the case that they want a “level playing field.” They would like to have all companies supplying the finished product - hardwood plywood - comply with TPC certification.

The first consideration is that a laminator, who was using urea-formaldehyde resin, would add only about 1/10 of the resin that a core manufacturer would. Trying to regulate 100,000 or so la minators would be addressing a minor, if not diminimus, usage. According to industry da ta a typical 4’ x 8’ x 11/16” thick MDF or PB core weighs about 80 pounds. The panel is made with about 12% binder or 9.6 pounds of binder per panel. A laminator when making hardwood plywood, will usually coat both sides of a core panel with an adhesive at about 1.1 pounds per panel. So the laminator is dealing with on ly 11% of the resin of the core manufacturer.

If a laminator uses NAF adhesives, the laminator is not adding any formaldehyde emissions. Since all core is currently certified the panel should meet all the emission requirements that it is certified to meet. Additionally, if an NAF laminator did not meet the emission target there would be nothing they could do to correct it since the certified core itself would be the only source of emissions.

So what makes a level playing field? If a plywood manu facturer who makes the whole panel at one location is paying for certification and a core manufacturer is payi ng for certification the certification costs are the same. Requiring a laminator to have TPC certification, ev en if they do not use urea-formaldehyde adhesive , does not make a level playing field. It doubles the certification cost and creates an advantage for the manufacturer who makes the whole panel. That, I feel, would be protectionist.

If the goal is to limit formaldehyde emissions with th e least intrusive measures the EPA can do the following.

1. Decide that the costs and efforts to regulate such a small % of formaldehyde emissions do not warrant the inclusion of laminators in the regulation.

2. The EPA, or Congress, could simply outlaw the use of formaldehyde adhesive for panels, such as is done for the insecticide DDT. I don’t believe certification is requi red for pesticide applicators to see if DDT is still being applied.

3. Since PVA adhesive is about 50% more expensive than urea-formaldehyde, the EPA could ask congress to apply a tax to urea-formaldehyde adhesives to make them more expensive than PVA.

4. The EPA could have a TPC or other auditor simply certify that only EPA/CARB compliant core and NAF adhesives are being used. This can be done without an y testing simply by matching resin purchasing records against panels produced.

5. The EPA could emulate the IRS and send out a form, yearly, requiring someone in a company to sign a statement such as, “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the purchasing records and production policies of (company), and declare that th e company has used only EPA/CARB compliant core and NAF adhesives in the production of laminated panels from 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2011 and that is true to the best of my knowledge and belief (Signe d QA/Production Manager/etc.).”

6. The EPA could approve a label that was simply a declar ation of compliance punishable as perjury such as, “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that we (Name of Company) use only core ma terials and adhesives in the production of these laminated panels that meet the EPA/ CARB requirements for formalde hyde emissions. That is true to the best of my knowledge and belief , signed (QC Manager, Inspector, CEO).” There may be other alternatives, as well , to restrict urea-formaldehyde resins.

When CARB was introduced it applied only to California. Since manufacturers had access to either CARB compliant material or not, it was necessary for California to be able to regulate panels coming into the st ate. They could only do that by employing Chain of Custody procedures. Consumer labeling promoting CARB was also considered advantageous since there was an option for the consumer to purchase non-compliant material. Once the laminator issue is dealt with, however,the Chain of Custody and labeling require ments will no longer be necessary. Th ose costs would merely be unnecessary expenses ultimately borne by the consumer.

Stanford Stone Compliance Manager Navy Island, Inc.RE: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule
Dick Titus to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 04:11 PM

Thanks Tracey. We still are developing data to respond to Lynn's questions. We will have for February 17 meeting. Appreciate your efforts.

-----Original Message----- From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:37 PM To: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov Cc: Power.Lucinda@epamail.epa.gov Subject: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a
fuller schedule

Hi Potential SERs,

I'm touching base on the next steps for the Formaldehyde SBAR Panel. Below are three dates to keep in mind, the most important of which is 02/17/2011 (#2).

01/20/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting (held on 01/06/2011) are due.

02/17/2011 - Panel Outreach Meeting from 1 - 4 PM. Logistics and materials will be distributed two weeks prior to the meeting. For now, please reserve this time on your calendars and make your travel reservations if you intend to join the meeting in person. The meeting will be located in Washington, DC at EPA Headquarters (1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004 --- Same place as the last meeting). You are not required to travel for this meeting; a toll-free conference line will be provided. But if you were to choose to attend any meeting in person, this would be the appropriate meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit your advice and recommendations on the regulatory, economic, technical, and legal information provided to you by the Panel. The Panel also seeks your input on the potential impacts of the proposed rule on the entity you are representing.

03/03/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Panel Outreach Meeting are due.

I'll be in touch with more info as we approach the date of the meeting.

Thanks, Tracey

______________________________________________________________________________

_____ Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency #6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A | Washington, DC 20460 P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564 .0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.govFW: CARB lette r Fred Zoeller

to: Tracey Westfield 01/11/2011 05:35 PM Show Details

History: This message has been replied to.

Tracey here you go , thanks for your hospitality last week

, let me know if I can help further

Fred Zoeller

Laminate Technologies, Inc.

161 Maule Road Tiffin, OH 44883

419

‐ 448

‐ 0812

From: Paula Rathburn [ mailto:prathburn@lamtech.net ]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Fred Zoeller Subject: CARB letter

Here you go - let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks Paula ☺ Page 1 of 1

1/31/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web1305

...

# LAMINATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

THE TRUSTED SOURCE FOR YOUR LAMINATE AND FABRICATION NEEDS

January 11, 2011

Dear Sirs;

While Laminate Technologies is a relatively small ma nufacturing firm in the wood product industry (sales of 46 million), and may not be as versed as ot hers in our industry on the current regulations in California and the upcoming federal regulations , bu t as I heard comments from the room on January 6th,
the things that concern me and I feel need to be evaluated in implementation of the new regulations are listed below;

1) The new regulation needs to have a manufacturing pass thru date and not a sale thru date, with provisions of not stock piling 2) The new regulation should be for the manufacture of the composite panel and components that go into a laminated panel as this is where certification needs to take place and not have additional certification down the supply chain 3) I feel PB and Plywood should be held to the same standards, along with domestic and import production 4) I believe it is extremely important to keep CARB and the Federal Regulations the same so that we do not have two standards in our industry 5) All regulations must take into account as to not add additional cost or burdens on the companies that must conform to these regulations. At times we are already positioning our industry to be non competitive to other types of cabinets and furniture manufacturers, etc.

Again these are just a few of my comments on the existi ng C.A.R.B regulations. For processors such as Lam Tech, it is relatively easy for a small company as ours to be compliant, as the burden of certification falls on the manufacture of the composite panel as typically th ese are much larger organizations which have the resources for compliance. Our hope is that the ne w Federal Regulations will cover the same scope and compliance factors as C,A,R,B. If you have any questions, or if my contribution on this panel is needed, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Fred Zoeller

Fred Zoeller Laminate Technologies, Inc. 161 Maule Road Tiffin, OH 44883
419-448-0812

TENNESSEE DIVISION
1356 GATEWAY DRIVE GALLATIN, TN 37066
615.451.4554 615.451.4557 (FAX) TEXAS DIVISION
202 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. DIBOLL, TX 75941
936.829.0079 936.829.0129 (FAX)

www.lamtech.net INFO@LAMTECH.NET OHIO DIVISION/CORPORATE
161 MAULE ROAD TIFFIN, OH 44883
419.448.0812 419.448.0811 (FAX)

SALES@LAMTECH.NET

## B.2 Written Comments from Potential Small Entity Representatives following 01/06/2011 Outreach Meeting2nd panel meeting lette r Dennis Carroll

to: Tracey Westfield, Tracey Westfield 03/03/2011 03:31 PM Show Details

Hello Tracey,

Attached are our comments to the 2 nd panel meeting.

Best,



## Dennis Dean Carroll

EHS Manager Rutland Plywood Corporation PO Box 6180 Rutland, VT 05702 Email: dcarroll@rutply.com Tel: (802) 747-4000 ext.4334 Cellular: (802) 779-1140 Fax: (802) 770-1921 www.rutply.com Page 1 of 1

3/3/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7706.

...M a rch 3, 2011

Tracey Westfield Regulatory Management Division US Environmental Protection Agency
#6440BB Ariel Rios North 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Rutland Plywood Corporation – Comments and Concerns for the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel

Dear Tracey Westfield,

As the EPA implements the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, Public Law 111-199, Rutland Plywood Corporation (RPC) recommends that you consider exempting engineered veneer and products not intended for interior use, from the third party certification (TPC) and emission level requirements. RPC also requests the EPA to exempt manufactured panels made without cores or platforms per current Public Law 111-199 definitions. In addition we also suggest you to consider exempting other hardwood plywood products; which were not originally involved in the true spirit of this legislation.

RPC also asks the EPA to develop practical definitions of engineered veneer as well as interior use. We would also like to see a specific exemption for Compreg in the final regulations or have it incorporated in the engineered veneer exemption. Compreg is an impregnated and compressed wood. Hardwood veneers are impregnated with a phenol formaldehyde resin (Less than 1% formaldehyde by weight). This process increases density and strength in the wood. Current testing suggests this product is just above the .05 PPM formaldehyde emission level. Currently there are no alternative resins available for this product. If this product is unable to get exempt from the regulation both from the TPC requirements and from the emission level we would no longer be able to manufacture it; therefore RPC would lose approximately $1.8 million in annual revenue. This loss would be detrimental to the company and its future existence would besignificantly jeopardized. RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material

is dwarfed in size by the companies, legislation.

RPC products are made for niche stocks and novelty items. ( See attachment A Corporation – Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111 pose little if any health risks , based on end usage, burdensome and costly. In addition to having th been unable to find a performance competitive .05 resin for these products.

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique products. Examples of this would be o up to 41 sheets of veneer. This is much has been extremely difficult to find a resin that can meet both performance standard.

RPC does not believe it fits into any of laminated products due to us not using any platforms or pre question. Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exemp manufactured panels made without definitions, would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation.

While the EPA moves forward with draftin concerns and hopeful exemptions to insulate us financial strength.

Si ncerely,

Dennis D. Carroll

EHS Manager RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material

the companies, who in our opinion were originally the target for this

for niche markets – including but not limited to, guitar bodies, gun
See attachment A - January 10, 2011 letter re garding Rutland Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111 -199) These final products

, based on end usage, making the regulation of the products overly In addition to having th ese products exempt based on end use, RPC has been unable to find a performance competitive .05 PPM formaldehyde emission level compliant

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique
would be o ur gun stock and guitar body blanks . These
This is much thicker than the average plywood panel

. has been extremely difficult to find a resin that can meet both the emission stand

RPC does not believe it fits into any of the definitions in the act, regarding hard wood plywood not using any platforms or pre

- made cores in their products in Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exemp

without cores or platforms per current Public L aw 111 would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation.

While the EPA moves forward with draftin g the regulations, please include our companies concerns and hopeful exemptions to insulate us from what would have a critical effect on our RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material the target for this

guitar bodies, gun garding Rutland Plywood These final products making the regulation of the products overly ese products exempt based on end use, RPC has

emission level compliant

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique
. These are made with

. (4x8 sheet) It
emission stand ard and

wood plywood or made cores in their products in Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exemp ting
aw 111 -199 would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation.

g the regulations, please include our companies
from what would have a critical effect on ourRE: follow-up from yesterday's meeting for the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Tom Julia to: Tracey Westfield, Tracey Westfield 03/03/2011 04:55 PM Cc: Lynn Vendinello, "Corey Connors", "Gary Heroux"

Tracey,

Please see my attached SER submission for the Panel's consideration.

Thank you and best regards,

Tom

Thomas A. Julia President Composite Panel Association Leesburg, VA 20176 USA
703.724.1128 ext. 243 · 703. 724.1588 fax · 703.405.5602 mobile tjulia@cpamail.org · http://www.pbmdf.com

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited.

-----Original Message----- From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:20 PM To: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov Subject: follow-up from yesterday's meeting for the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

Hi SERs --

Thanks for your enthusiastic participation in yesterday's Panel Outreach Meeting for EPA's rulemaking implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. I have two things to share with you:

1) You are invited to submit written comments on the materials and discussion from yesterday's meeting, or on any other thoughts/ideas/questions related to the rulemaking. Comments are due on Thursday, 03/03/2011. Please email them to me (Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov), and I will distribute them to all three Panel agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

2) After we receive your comments, the next step in this process is for EPA, SBA, and OMB to work together to develop recommendations for the EPA Administrator. These recommendations are collected in a Panel Report. Generally, a Panel Report becomes available when the proposed rule publishes, at which time the Panel Report is placed in the rule's
docket.

The "Formaledhyde Emissions from Pressed Wood Products" rulemaking has a docket number of EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627. You can access that docket onRegulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA -HQ-OPPT-2008-0627 You can even click the "Email Alerts" button near the top of that web page to receive automatic alerts when a new document is added to the docket. That way, you don't have to keep checking the docket every day. OCSPP is on schedule to publish this rulemaking in December 2011, so that's when you can expect the Panel Report to appear in the docket.

If OCSPP writes a second, earlier rule related to third-party certification (TPC) -- or any other issue -- then at a minimum, the portion of the Panel Report pertaining to that topic(s) will be placed in the TPC rule's docket. At this time, I don't have more info about the TPC rule or its docket.

Thanks, Tracey

______________________________________________________________________________

_____ Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental Protection Agency #6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A | Washington, DC 20460 P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564 .0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov

# C O M P O S I T E P A N E L A S S O C I A T I O N

Advancing the wood-based panel and decorative surfacing industries

19 4 65 De e r f ie l d Av e n ue , S u i te 30 6, L e e s b u r g, V i r g i n ia 2 01 7 6
Te l 70 3. 7 24 . 11 2 8 • 86 6 .4 C O M POS I T ES • Fa x 7 03 .7 2 4. 15 88

CANADA
Pos t O ff ic e Bo x 7 47

, S ta t i o n “B ” , O t ta wa , O n t a r io K 1 P 5 P 8 • T e l 6 13 .2 3 2. 6 78 2 • Fa x 7 03 .7 2 4. 1 58 8
INTERNATIONAL TESTIN G AND CERTIFICATION CENTER 73 L a ws o n Roa d , S u i te 1 0 1, L e e s b u rg , V i r g i n ia 20 1 75 • Te l 70 3. 7 24 . 11 2 8 • Fa x 7 0 3. 7 24 .1 5 88 www.pbmdf.com Small Business Advocacy Review Panel For EPA Rulemaking on Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products

Supplementary Comments of Thomas A. Julia President, Composite Panel Association

March 3, 2011

The following comments are submitted by Small Entity Representative Thomas A. Julia, President of the Composite Panel Association (CPA), on behalf of the small business members of the association and regarding EPA ’s imminent rulemaking to implement the provisions of the Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products Act (the "Statute"). Some of these comments supplement the previous CPA submission on January 20, 2011; others address topics that were raised during the EPA presentation to the Panel on February 17, 2011.

CPA represents more than 90% of the manufacturing capacity of particleboard, medium density fiberboard (“MDF”) and hardboard in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. We also represent all the major adhesive suppliers to the North American composite panel industry, the major manufacturers of decorative surfaces as well as distributors of panel products, and a number of major fabricators of end-use industry products (e.g., furniture).

Collectively, CPA’s members will be those most impacted by the Statute and its implementation by EPA. Most CPA members are small businesses and have manufacturing facilities located in rural communities. Composite panel production in the United States serves domestic markets and customers almost exclusively, and CPA is fully committed to sustaining domestic manufacturing jobs and small businesses.

Almost all our members are suffering through a business downturn that is unprecedented in the history of the composite panel industry. It is coupled with substantially higher energy and raw material costs along with aggressive competition from products manufactured offshore. These should be important considerations for the Panel as it weighs the small business implications of what EPA is considering in this rulemaking.

As an underlying premise, CPA again stress es that wherever possible and practical, the EPA regulation and the California Air Resources Board’s Air borne Toxic Control Measure on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products ( “CARB” or the “CARB rule”) shou ld be fully compatible.

Our members have abided by the CARB rule from its inception and will likewise abide by the Statute that CPA itself proposed. That said, we urge that EPA not use this rulemaking as a2

means to impose new, unnecessary and/or redundant cost burdens on the industry supply chain. Instead we urge that EPA seek implementation approaches that serve the objectives of the Statute while minimizing the burden of compliance.

I. Third Party Certification; Quality Assurance

Credible third party testing and certification coupled with a robust Third Party Certifier ("TPC") system is essential to the proper and consistent implementation of the Statute. Plainly, this system is what gives the greatest assurance that panels are meeting the formaldehyd e emission limitations. Moreover, a transparent chain of custody system must be in place to enable panels to be tracked from the retail level back to the mill producing them, and to the TPC auditing that mill’s quality assurance procedures and randomly checking its production

. It is equally important that the TPCs themselves are credibly approved, monitored and audited to be sure they are legitimate entities fulfilling their regulatory responsibilities on a consistent and
verifiable basis

.

EPA has posited two options with respect to management of the TPC system: (1) to generally follow the approach adopted by California in Section 93120.4 of its regulation; or (2) to enter an MOU with an accrediting body that would perform the same functions now being managed by CARB. CPA submits that both options could be viable and might be combined, appreciating that each present management and/or cost concerns to the businesses affected by this rulemaking.

The CARB approach has been generally effective and CPA endorses it. We also recognize that it may be appropriate to require that TPC's be more universally accredited by recognized national and international bodies, attesting to their general capabilities of laboratory testing, process control and integrity. CPA would endorse such further oversight

– i.e., toughening the current CARB requirements to ensure the universality of TPC performance.

We would oppose, however, permission being given to a more global accreditation body to exercise substantial supervision of the actual certification process, or to have discretionary authority over the design or operation of the certification system, including the criteria by which TPCs are approved. These actions could potentially create new costs and burdens for TPCs and their customers that may or may not be warranted to satisfy the objectives of the

Statute

. Such roles should be reserved for EPA itself, with the agency identifying the specific role and scope of the body, as well as any annual compliance procedures and costs that might be imposed on TPCs and, by extension, their customers. The sole function of the global accreditation body should be limited to oversight and auditing, with regular reports submitted

to EPA.3

By limiting the scope of the body as we’ve described, efficiencies may be attainable that benefit all interested parties. For example, EPA and CARB may decide to cooperate on an MOU with the accreditation body for its limited auditing functions, thereby retaining their federal and state powers and responsibilities while also precluding redundant costs and functions. TPCs themselves might be able to combine accreditations or substitute a single accreditation by the global body. This would in lieu of a more costly, complex and arguably redundant system that might otherwise result.

During the previous Panel meeting, some concern was expressed that the current TPC system managed by CARB has not been rigorous enough in identifying non-compliance or addressing non-complying lots. Some have termed this a “test method” problem , which it is not. Rather, there are legitimate challenges to consistently meeting the rigorous Phase 2 emission ceilings

. While these will be mitigated over time as a result of experience and technology, we believe that they can also be practically address ed in the rulemaking by modifying the TPC requirements, as mentioned above, as well as the quality assurance manual requirements with which each TPC-approved mill must comply. In short, CPA believes that considerations of non-compliance and non-complying lots should be viewed systematically at both the TPC level and the mill level. Elements that might be examined include the frequency and accuracy of quality control testing, the strength of the correlation of small scale production testing, the base qualification tests, and the rigor of notice and remedial actions in the event of repeated test failures.

II. Test Methods

CPA submits that the test methods found in the CARB regulation and referenced in ANSI standards are time-tested, repeatable, accurate and appropriate methodologies. Alternative methods should be examined with much caution and skepticism. As mentioned above, we see no evidence of shortcomings with the current test methods recognized by California and in the Statute, and the global panel industry has increasingly embrac ed them.

Notwithstanding our support for the se approved test methods generally, the Statute has distinct and different requirements for quarterly and quality control testing. Section (b)(3)(A) of the statute provides

“(A) Compliance with the emission standards described in paragraph (2) shall be measured by

– (i) quarterly tests shall be conducted pursuant to test method ASTM E-1333 (2002) or , subject to subparagraph (B) [dealing with findings of equivalence], ASTM D-6007- 02;”4

We note that there is no discretion given to the EPA to add test methods for quarterly testing, but there is appropriate discretion granted for EPA to add approved test methods for quality control purposes:

“(ii) quality control tests shall be conducted pursuant to ASTM D-6007-02, ASTM D-5582, or such other test methods as may be established by the Administrator through rule- making.”

CPA further supports ongoing industry efforts to make current standards and test
methods more efficient and advanced. It would be highly premature and inappropriate

, however, for EPA to contemplate test method changes in this rulemaking given this significant commitment by industry coupled with the technical challenges already presented when measuring exceedingly low levels of formaldehyde emissions.

I II . Hardboard Definition

In CPA’s earlier submission we pointed out that there was broad industry interest in avoiding the possibility that thin MDF could be categorized as hardboard under the EPA’s product definitions, and thereby secure an exclusion from the regulatory scope. We also noted that the definition of hardboard was being re-evaluated by industry in the context of the pending revision to the American National Standard for Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4.

As the sponsor of this consensus-based Standard, CPA intends to ballot the final proposed revision with the stakeholder body this month. It will include the following definition of hardboard that has broad industry support and that we recommend to EPA:

“Basic Hardboard

.

Hardboard is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic fibers consolidated under heat and pressure in a hot press to a density of 500 kg/m 3 (31 lbs/ft 3 ) or greater by:

(A) a wet process, or (B) a dry process that uses: (a) a phenolic resin, or

(b) a resin system in which there is no added formaldehyde as part of the resin cross-linking structure.5 Other materials may be added to improve certain properties, such as stiffness, hardness, finishing properties, resistance to abrasion and moisture, as well as to increase strength, durability, and utility.”

In addition to updating ANSI A135.4 Basic Hardboard, CPA is currently sponsoring updates of ANSI A135.5 Prefinished Hardboard Paneling and ANSI A135.6 Hardboard Siding (to be renamed Engineered Wood Siding). CPA has also initiated the ANSI approval process of a new standard tentatively titled ANSI A135.7 Engineered Wood Trim.

We anticipate receiving final ANSI approval of all four aforementioned standards by the end of 2011 and recommend their reference by EPA as products excluded from regulation based on product definition.

IV . Labeling Individual Panels

During its presentation EPA outlined a variety of labeling options that are under consideration. CPA believes it is essential that labeling under the federal and California regulations is consistent. The prospect of a dual label addressing the same subjects is anathema to manufacturers, distributors, retailers and consumers alike. CPA thus endorses the last option identified in the presentation:

“Coordinated federal labeling system with California's so that there would be one harmonized labeling program.”

We particularly ask that there be no requirement for marking each individual panel, which is impractical, unnecessary and in some instances impossible if there is an expectation that such a label will remain legible for a significant period of time. The California regulation provides an option:

“Product Labeling Requirements. Each panel or bundle of composite wood products must be clearly labeled to indicate compliance with the
emission standards specified in Section 93120.2(a).”

Section 93120.3(e) (emphasis supplied). Some panels cannot be labeled without impairing the appearance and functionality of the product, and finishes may not appear homogenous if there is a stamp on the face. Moreover, secondary manufacturers will incur delays and costs to remove these labels prior to final processing.

Using bundle tags on units of composite wood panels is a long-recognized and effective way of imparting all necessary labeling information to customers. CPA strongly urges EPA to embrace this approach rather than requiring individual panel labels.6

V. No -Added Formaldehyde Resins; Green Seals

EPA has suggest ed that there might be special recognition via a "green seal" placed o f products “that fall well below the NAF emission levels for ‘green

- marketing’ purposes" (emphasis added). We submit that this statement misreads the state of emissions capabilities, and that from a practical standpoint no such products exist when considering the scope of this rulemaking.

The NAF levels in the CARB regulation are extraordinarily low

– 90% of testing must be below 0.04 parts per million (ppm) and no value can be over 0.05 ppm or 0.06 ppm depending on product type. During the CARB rulemaking proceedings various manufacturers submitted information for the record that many types of virgin wood inherently emit a de minimus level of formaldehyde, much as the human body itself produces formaldehyde every day. We submit that the achievement of values below NAF thresholds, as well as the ability to measure these values, would be highly difficult if not impossible, and without purpose.

CPA is also skeptical of a green seal program generally. We believe it may further complicate what will already be a significant labeling challenge for the industry value chain, and will result in distinguishing one exceedingly low emitting product from another.

A related consideration is the Federal Trade Commission ’s far -reaching "Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims ” proposal. Presumably any green marketing seals proposed by EPA, for whatever purpose and on whatever basis, would have to include extensive disclosures to meet these FTC guidelines, requirements that many companies would
find difficult to accommodate.

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate on the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel

. I urge that all SER and agency documents as well as the final Panel report be made public in their entirety at the moment the initial EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
announced.Re: your comments are due on 03/03/2011 to the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Florida Plywoods, Inc.

to: Tracey Westfield 03/02/2011 12:29 PM Show Details

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Ms. Westfield, Please see my attached comments (2 pages).

Thank you.

John Maultsby, Jr. President Florida Plywoods, Inc. 850.948.2211 ph Page 1 of 1

3/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TWestfi6\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web8953.

...3-1-2011

RE: Comments on meeting of 2-17-2011

I would like to invite your attention to my comments dated 1-6-2011 on the second page of this transmittal. I would also re-emphasize, in my opinion, that all programs (due to extremely low CARB limits) will eventually have rare, random non-complying lots.

Due to the lag time between the production date and the chamber testing at the TPC, the volume of non-complying material in the field will be quite large before the realization that the lot has failed. Understanding that th e CARB limits are part of Federal law, the TPC could possibly stretch their criteria for co mpliance to the overall test results for a particular plant. (For instance : a plant might be allowed one failure out of fifty.) Again,
there will be non-complying lots. I don’t think th e discussion of Feb 17 indicated any practical way to deal with these once they are determined non-complying.

I would like to emphasize again that common sense needs to be a part of this program. As I understand, the CPA and CARB set these li mits based on what is achievable without any consideration or producti on test history. Although these limits are achievable, they are not necessarily 100% reachabl e the first time, every time. They are much lower than any threshold for health. Again, no-one is goi ng to die if a producti on lot tests slightly
over the CARB limits. The more I listen to di scussions, I think that this whole program has the potential to be destructive to the en tire industry, and the e fforts to regulate are over the top.

Thank you for your consideration.

John Maultsby, Jr.
President Florida Plywoods, Inc. 850.948.2211 phThoughts on EPA Meeting held 1-6-2011:

CPA presented itself as representing a wide c onstituency. I’ve been a Director for CPA since 1985. Real decisions are made by the Executive Committee comprised of a small number of large dues payers (dues based on production). Our company has been an associate member of the KCMA since the 1960s . Although they tout a representation of a wide membership, they too tend to represent large dues payers.

Our company makes particleboard for our own use to be covered with wood veneer, vinyl or paper. It is shipped out as cut-to-si ze components for kitchen cabinets and furniture. Our volume on a weekly basis is probably rough ly equal to the one shift production of the large particleboard manufacturers. As a resu lt, we must keep overhead and management costs low. Management and quality control duties are shared among all staff members. In short, in a small company everybody has to wear more than one hat. We support the CARB limits. However, the TPCs can alter th eir requirements for testing, in particular
the size and duration of test lo ts and the procedures for rece rtification of non-complying lots. These things take up a lot of manage ment time which could be spent in growing the business and developing new products. For in stance, our product is tested each day representing a much higher percentage of tests to production than the large manufacturers. In my opinion all programs, due to the extremely low CARB limits, will eventually have rare random non-complying lots. Due to the time involved in the TPC testing for compliance there can be a large vol ume of non-complying ma terial in the field
before the realization a lot ha s failed. In determining comp liance, the total QC program of each plant as well as prior TPC tests need to be considered. Further, I fear that the audit program of the EPA for the TPCs will resu lt in stricter procedures, record keeping,
etc. which will be more difficult for the limited resources of the small manufacturers.

I personally have been invol ved with the use of urea formaldehyde resins for over 60 years. When I first entered the industry UF resin was a st rong irritant. That has been totally eliminated to my knowledge. During my experience with UF I know of no proven illness linked to UF resin. In short, a rare random non-complying lot from a QC program with a good history of complian ce needs to be given consid eration. To be blunt, nobody is going to die if a rare lot is shippe d with emissions just over the CARB limit.

Thank you for your consideration.

John Maultsby, Jr.
President Florida Plywoods, Inc.
850.948.2211Comments to Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Dick Titus

to: Tracey Westfield 03/03/2011 04:45 PM Show Details

C. Richard Titus

Executive Vice President
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association

1899 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20191 (703) 264

‐ 1690/FAX (703) 620

‐ 6530 Pa g e 1 of 1

3/4/2011 file://C:\Users\Trace y \A pp Data\Local\Tem p \notes35A6F9\~web1532.htm